2006-06-16

Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed from June 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain Acts, be read the third time and passed. 
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cape Breton—Canso. 
It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain acts. I rise not only as the elected member for Nunavut but also as the associate public health critic for the official opposition.
As our world becomes more globalized, and as our population ages, we are faced with challenges, as a country, to public health which we must address. 
The necessity to strengthen coordination in public health across the country was largely highlighted by the inadequacies of the public health response to the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, commonly known as SARS. It was a most painful and difficult lesson and certainly required a focused and strategic effort to address the shortcomings for the future security of all Canadians.
I would like to quote from a document which is available on the website of the Public Health Agency of Canada. It is Dr. Naylor's response to Minister McLellan on June 15, 2003, as the chair for the advisory committee on SARS and public health. He wrote:
 Thus, we believe the focus of governments should be first and foremost on building the necessary public health infrastructure and clinical capacity to contain infectious outbreaks. Local containment and rapid contract tracing is the key both to prevention of exportation and limiting the impact of importation of infectious diseases. 
We are reminded of the crisis that we grappled with as a nation in 2003. This did indeed affect us as a nation, as a threat to our public health. It required action and the then Liberal government responded with study and consultation. The prominent reports included: “Learning from SARS--Renewal of Public Health in Canada, A report of the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health October 2003”, which is also known as the Naylor report, and “Reforming Health Protection and Promotion in Canada: Time to Act”.
In September 2004 the Public Health Agency of Canada was established by an order in council, and the Public Health Agency of Canada received control of the former population and public health branch of Health Canada. After extensive study and consultation, the Liberal government developed and introduced on November 16, 2005 Bill C-75, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain acts. 
The bill would provide the legislative basis for the Public Health Agency of Canada. Once Parliament was dissolved the bill consequently died and was removed from the order paper.
Fortunately for Canadians, the Conservative government has decided to re-introduce the Liberal bill on April 24, 2006 in this new session as Bill C-5.
The preamble states:
 --the Government of Canada wishes to take public health measures...foster collaboration within the field of public health and to coordinate federal policies and programs in the area of public health...promote cooperation and consultation...foster cooperation in that field with foreign governments and international organizations...creation of a public health agency for Canada and the appointment of a Chief Public Health Officer will contribute to federal efforts to identify and reduce public health risk factors and to support national readiness for public health threats-- 
Coordination and cooperation seem to be a clear path to a strong public health system, resilient enough to contain or deter outbreaks that could cause our economy billions of dollars in both health care expenditures and lost tourism dollars. 
In addition to such financial consequences, the social costs are immeasurable. This was proven during the SARS crisis in the greater Toronto area as regular days were disrupted with fear and insecurity.
Bill C-5 indicates that the Minister of Health will preside over the Public Health Agency of Canada. To this end, the agency will be directly accountable to the Canadian people through federal legislation. 
Furthermore, the bill makes amendments to the Department of Health Act and the Quarantine Act. As a country, our demands are always changing. It is important, therefore, to meet such changing demands with appropriate and adequate legislation and amendments if need be.
These amendments are an example of meeting such changes in our country. However, in my support of Bill C-5, it is of serious concern to me that the bill does not have specific statutory responses for first nations and Inuit population health issues, including crisis response.
In respect to the Garden Hill First Nation, which my colleague from Churchill represents, and the tuberculosis epidemic that is being experienced since March, the first two active cases of TB have spread to more than two dozen active cases. This outbreak has been the source of social disruption. 
Although public health for first nations Inuit is currently administered through the FNIHB of Health Canada, Bill C-5 should be an important bridge and lead on the issue of public health for first nations and Inuit. It would work in collaboration with the aboriginal people, as they are the population at risk due to chronic housing shortages, mould in homes, and inadequate access to health care and health care systems. I might add that even in my own riding of Nunavut, we are certainly experiencing cases of TB that have been increasing in numbers and that is very alarming to us.
Through Bill C-5, the federal government also has legislative authority for specific client groups, including the RCMP, the military and federal institutions. These are areas of direct responsibility and each of these client groups requires specific consideration and responsibility for optimum service.
The bill sets out the framework for coordination, promotion and protection of public health for Canadians, and will support continued collaboration and coordination with provincial, territorial and first nation governments, along with Inuit governments as well.
Canadians want to be healthy. They do not want to feel at risk of diseases such as SARS, avian flu, TB, or any other diseases for that matter. 
Canadians want to live free and healthy, and quite frankly, Canadians deserve it. Bill C-5 provides substantial assistance in this particular regard and this bill addresses the challenges and obstacles that are blind to our provincial jurisdictions and international borders. 
I encourage all members of this House to join in solidarity and work toward the benefit of the health of our people, the health of our nation.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her contribution to Bill C-5.
I recently had the opportunity to sit in at a health committee meeting with the new head of the Public Health Agency of Canada, Dr. Butler-Jones. One of the things that I was very interested in was that there seems to be a partitioning of some aboriginal health issues outside of the agency, and it raises some questions.
 I know that the members of the health committee also question the separation of initiatives as it might relate, for instance, to fetal alcohol syndrome, where there was one approach for the aboriginal community and one set of programs, and the rest of the population was dealt with through the agency itself.
I would like to ask the member, is she confident that the aboriginal health issues, which have been discussed often in this place, have an appropriate attention directed to them through this new Public Health Agency of Canada?
[Interjection]
Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that currently there is no obligation for the federal government. It has no statutory obligation to deal with aboriginal health through the Public Health Agency of Canada. That is something that worries me a little in that we would have a separate way of treating the health of aboriginal Canadians. 
My personal preference would be to have a more coordinated effort that is in line with the rest of the country. I cannot speak so much for first nations, but I know for my riding, where we are under a territorial public government, that our department of health is part of the initiatives that pertain in the country.
I know my colleague from Churchill was very worried about this particular part of the bill. We discussed it and felt that there has to be a more coordinated effort so that these types of services for the bands, especially the health services for the people who live on reserves, does not fall through the cracks and that there is a coordinated national effort along with what we are doing in the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Ms. Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to and greatly appreciated my colleague's speech, and I share her concerns about the first nations and the Inuit community.
I would like to know when, if ever, in her opinion, the government took concrete action to respond to the needs of the first nations and the Inuit without having to be seriously prodded into action by parliamentarians. Also, does she believe that her concerns will be put at ease by the government investing more heavily in structures? 
[Interjection]
Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, again, I cannot speak for first nations issues, but in my discussions with different people on different issues, whether it be on health, education or housing, we need to understand that unless the people are involved in the process of developing criteria, developing curricula, and developing policies for their own people, they will not feel that they have ownership of the measures that are in place, and they will not work. 
We have seen from past experiences, even within the nine years that I have been here, in areas where we do not work with the people, there has been resistance to come on side with whatever initiative we are doing, whether we are talking about health, education or governance. Unless the people themselves are directly involved and have a say in how measures are being implemented to help them, then they will not work and we will not get the results that we want to see.
In this particular area, I would say that the Public Health Agency of Canada and maybe through Health Canada must work with first nations and the Inuit population to work with measures that would ensure that the safety of their health is the same as other Canadians, especially in the Public Health Agency of Canada criteria.
The other thing is, under the first nations and Inuit health benefits, we have a different health insurance system that really needs to be overhauled. That might be another area that the federal government should pursue because we do not want, as we say in Canada, the two tier system for health. That is certainly also the case for aboriginal Canadians.
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join today's debate on Bill C-5.
Enhancing the public health care infrastructure is the key in combating disease and possible pandemics that may threaten our societies and our nation at large. The lessons we have learned from SARS serve as imperative in restructuring and enhancing our public health care system.
Bill C-75, introduced by the Liberals in the last parliamentary session, was an initial step toward strengthening the ability to protect the health and well-being of our citizens. It is important to keep our public health system and the health of our population a priority at all times, not only in times of unpredictable disease. A key element in enhancing our capacity for disease prevention as well as emergency response lies within the intergovernmental infrastructure of public health.
A sustainable public health system encompasses a comprehensive and cohesive measure of cooperation, not only across governments but within governments as well, in addition to non-governmental organizations, the private sector and of course the public at large.
In general, every level of government, from local to federal, must collaborate and assume their roles and responsibilities in order to achieve a functional, integrated public health care system and an effective emergency response capacity. The SARS outbreak managed to articulate and highlight the weaknesses of our public health care system and the defects of managing health crises.
Toronto followed China and Hong Kong as another region hardest hit by SARS. As of August 12, 2003, there had been approximately 44 deaths and 438 suspected cases of SARS in the Toronto area. These figures, along with the panic that occurred because of SARS, put great pressure and stress on the health care system and inevitably on society at large. There were high numbers of patients in need of intensive care. Hospitals had to be shut down. Elective procedures were cancelled. Most important, appropriate and adequate supplies necessary to combat the disease were woefully lacking.
Luckily, the public health care workers were able to contain SARS and prevent it from spreading to the larger community. Nonetheless, such health crises should not be subject to and depend on luck or a committed staff. Rather, they should be tackled by a cohesive public health care system with the regional capacity for outbreak containment, information management, surveillance and infection control.
Overall, the SARS outbreak illustrated that Canada was not ready to deal adequately with a pandemic. The Government of Ontario was certainly at no capacity to withstand simultaneous SARS attacks, and the rest of the provinces did not represent a better stance either.
Learning from these lessons, the former government's initiative in introducing Bill C-75 was aimed at creating an agency with the ability to protect the health and safety of all Canadians. Such an agency was meant to create the leading role in federal collaboration with the provinces and territories in order to achieve a sustainable public health care system through the renewing of the system as a whole.
The Public Health Agency of Canada assumes the role of working closely with provinces and territories by being part of the public service and working to combat and prevent chronic diseases, such as heart disease and cancer, in addition to injury prevention, public health emergencies and, notably, infectious disease outbreaks.
The distinction of the agency is in its functional structure and interconnectedness. It liaises as follows. The agency is to be headed by the Chief Public Health Officer and includes two direct reporting bodies: first, the agency's corporate secretariat, which houses the executive and ministerial services, and second, the agency's scientific director general, who is responsible for the agency-wide mandate of science and coordination.
The agency has a number of branches. I will do a brief run-through of them. Of course, as with any good federal government agency, there will be a number of acronyms.
There is the infectious diseases and emergency preparedness branch, IDEP. Within this branch, there are number of different responsibilities. The centre for infectious disease prevention and control, CIDPC, is within this branch, as are the centre for emergency preparedness and response, CEPR, the national microbiology laboratory, NML, and the pandemic preparedness secretariat, PPS. They all fall within IDEP's responsibility.
Other branches are the health promotion and chronic disease prevention branch, HPCDP, as well as the public health practice and regional operations branch, PHPRO, which encompasses public health practice in all regions throughout the country.
Finally, there is the strategic policy, communications and corporate services branch, which encompasses the strategic policy directorate, the communications directorate, the finance and administration directorate, and the human resources directorate. Really, they are the logistical support behind the branch.
The new structure's functionality and collaboration and the division specialties created by this agency are essential for the renewal of our public health care system. With specific specialized fields and care divisions, each health oriented topic will be dealt with effectively, efficiently and rapidly.
For example, let us take into consideration the centre for emergency preparedness and response. This unit, under the infectious diseases and emergency preparedness branch, was created in March 2006 for the specific purpose of coordinating and facilitating pandemic preparedness and emergency response activities in a cross-governmental and nationwide format. This is an advanced unit that has brought together the lessons learned from SARS and was able to put them into use when dealing with the possible outbreak of avian flu. 
By providing leadership within the Public Health Agency of Canada, next to working with key partners and stakeholders, the secretariat served as the focal unit of emergency preparedness. It provided internal and international capacity of outbreak containment, information management, surveillance and infection control. It also achieved clarity in defining the roles and responsibilities within the decision making process, enabling effective, efficient and integrated federal and national health pandemic preparedness.
The success in controlling and disqualifying the breakout of avian flu in Canada serves as an indicator that this agency and its particular branches serve as assets to the betterment of the health care system here in Canada.
Canadians want to live in a safe and healthy environment, with a reduced risk of disease. Certainly these branches and the work undertaken by these branches will go a long way in doing that. That is why I believe Bill C-5 should be supported.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague on Bill C-5 regarding the creation of the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Since I have been a member of Parliament, the overwhelming majority of our time in this chamber has been spent on health care. I think everyone would agree. It has been the number one, top of mind issue, but very little of that time is spent on talking about public health and actually making Canadians healthier.
Recent events in the House of Commons have given us the opportunity to do something significant for actually improving the general health of Canadians, but this has not met with broad support from members of the House of Commons. Most of us were moved by Wendy Mesley's CBC program about the contamination and chemical soup we live in today and the terrible reality that 50% of our children's generation will get cancer due to exposure to chemical agents, much of it environmental.
Just weeks ago, the chamber dealt with an NDP opposition day motion to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides. I had wanted to ask my colleague from Nunavut a question about this, given that even people in the far north are finding residual chemical pesticides in the milk of mothers living in the far north. The level of contamination is staggering.
I want to ask my colleague for his views on two important public health initiatives that we have missed acting on in just the last 18 months. One is the opportunity we had to eliminate 200 million kilos per year of chemical pesticides being used for non-essential cosmetic purposes, hopefully to elevate the public health of all of us. Also, there is the fact that 18 months ago the House of Commons voted to ban trans fats, a known public health hazard for which there are safer alternatives available. No action ever came of it. 
It is frustrating to Canadians and certainly frustrating to me that as we stand here and talk about creating a new Public Health Agency of Canada we are not putting our money where our mouth is in terms of taking concrete steps to improve the general public health of Canadians.
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: First, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I see the merit in the member's point and I certainly agree with him. I think that as a society we have come a certain distance with regard to pollutants or carcinogens. I think we have become much more aware of their impact. Most provinces now hold portfolios for ministerial positions for health promotion. I also think there are steps toward addressing obesity. 
That is what this agency is all about. With the establishment of this agency, we have a number of different opportunities. There is an opportunity that will focus on public education. There will be science based evidence that will support public education programs. The agency will look at legislative initiatives that will allow this country to go forward and make wise investments to secure the future health of our citizens.
I am not in disagreement with the comments that my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has expressed to the House today.
Hon. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was listening attentively to my colleague for the last 10 minutes. I agree with him that this bill was brought forth by the previous government. We obviously would encourage it.
One of the comments I have, though, is that the Public Health Agency is headquartered in Winnipeg. Winnipeg is the site of the only level 4 lab in the country. Given that my colleague is from Cape Breton and has always been a huge supporter of ensuring that these institutions do not remain only in central Canada, that they be located outside of Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal, I would like my hon. colleague's comments on, first, the importance of ensuring that it be maintained in Winnipeg and, second, the importance of having these institutions outside of the central capital region.
[Interjection]
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming. We want to ensure these agencies and federal departments can deliver services more efficiently. We must also look at the cost of renting office space and having a well-trained, highly motivated workforce. I know great work is being done in Citizenship and Immigration by committed employees in Sydney and Cape Breton. I agree wholeheartedly that the regions make a great contribution to the country and this is one way that we can.
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada.
I would like to start by mentioning that I am a social worker by trade. I have worked in the Quebec health and social services network for 20 years or so. During that time, I worked in a residential and long term care centre for seniors. In this kind of facility, the risk of contagion and epidemics is significant, the clientele being extremely vulnerable. All that to say that, professionally speaking, I am very sensitive to the public health issue.
I witnessed firsthand how competently and expertly the public health authority in my region can handle epidemics, particularly a flue epidemic. I realized that Quebec had an aggressive and efficient response strategy that meets the needs of Quebeckers. 
Bill C-5, which is now back in the House, is essentially designed to solidify the agency as an independent administrative entity that is an integral part of the Canadian health network, by giving it a number of powers and appointing a chief public health officer.
In fact, Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain acts, has put Bill C-75, introduced in November 2005 just before the 38th Parliament was dissolved, back on the legislative agenda. As I have said previously, by making this Liberal bill its own, the Conservative government is also adopting the Liberal vision of Canada: Ottawa knows best and will impose its views from coast to coast.
I think it is important to understand that, contrary to what it has said since it was elected, the Conservative government wants to make inroads into health, one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.
Is the government aware that Quebec has had its own Institut national de santé publique for eight years now, since 1998? It appears not, because if the government was aware, it would have inserted a provision in the bill at the outset to recognize the reality in Quebec and to recognize that the proposed Public Health Agency of Canada will duplicate services and cause confusion in Quebec.
To illustrate this, I invite all members to visit the Internet site of the Institut national de santé publique du Québec at www.inspq.qc.ca. I will provide some information that will help the members understand just how much confusion the establishment of this agency will create. The site says:
 The vision of the Institut national de santé publique du Québec is to be the centre of expertise and reference centre for public health in Quebec. Its goal is to advance knowledge and propose intersectoral actions and strategies to improve Quebeckers' health and welfare. 
In fact, when the Institut national de santé publique was created in 1998, the coordination of public health expertise in Quebec underwent a major reorganization. Achieving the institute's mission involves pooling and sharing expertise, developing research, disseminating and using knowledge and engaging in international cooperation.
In addition, in the field, the institute works to attain its objectives through various activities and specific services: advice and specialized assistance, research or development of new knowledge, training, information, specialized laboratories, international cooperation and knowledge exchange.
All Institut national de santé publique du Québec activities are part of a broad concept of public health, and aim for the highest possible quality standards.
To achieve the highest possible quality standards, the agency participates in three World Health Organization collaborating centres, including the Quebec WHO collaborating centre on the development of healthy cities and towns, the Quebec WHO collaborating centre for safety promotion and injury prevention and, finally, the WHO collaborating centre on environmental and occupational health impact assessment and surveillance.
By definition, a WHO collaborating centre must “—participate in the strengthening of country resources, in terms of information, services, research and training, in support of national health development”.
The preamble to Bill C-5 mentions that this proposed Canadian agency also plans to encourage cooperation in this area with foreign governments and international organizations, as well as with other interested organizations and individuals. Clearly, these functions will duplicate what is already happening in Quebec. 
I understand that the government wishes to ignore this reality, but members of the Bloc Québécois were elected to talk about Quebec's reality, needs and distinct character here in the House of Commons. Do not be fooled into thinking that we are the only ones defending the interests of Quebeckers. 
On May 11 during question period at the Quebec National Assembly, Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, member for Borduas and opposition critic for health, asked the health minister, Philippe Couillard, the following question, “Does the minister acknowledge that there is evidence of overlapping jurisdictions and that what the federal government is proposing is more than an exchange of information; that it is taking the place of the government that has the responsibility of applying Quebec's public health act and health and social services act? Does he acknowledge the overlap in responsibilities? Does he acknowledge that this is unacceptable? Will he tell us today that the Government of Quebec will strongly and completely oppose interference in jurisdictions that are strictly Quebec's in the area of health?”
Do you know what the health minister, Mr. Couillard, said? He said, and I quote:
 Of course. 
He said, “Of course”, and he continued:
 The proof is that we used legal recourse on the issue of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act and we are opting out— 
Now listen to this.
 —of every national Canadian strategy that will be introduced, for instance on cancer, mental health and health promotion. We will see what the final wording of the bill will be, if and when it is passed by the House of Commons. 
This proves it is not just the Bloc Québécois that opposes such a bill; the Government of Quebec's health minister opposes it as well.
I suggest that, instead of creating new sources of conflict and overlaps in public spending, that money be paid directly to Quebec so that it can provide the health services the public has every right to expect.
Let us come back specifically to Bill C-5. In the preamble of the bill it says, “the Government of Canada wishes to take public health measures, including measures relating to health protection and promotion, population health assessment, health surveillance, disease and injury prevention, and public health emergency preparedness and response”. 
Does the current agency not already assume, for the most part, this role the government wants to give it in this bill?
I also understand that the agency already fostered consultation and cooperation with the provincial and territorial governments and that it already encouraged cooperation with foreign governments and international organizations, that it is headed up by a doctor and that it seems to have a large team of officials at its service as well as a hefty budget.
Why do we need to invent a new structure for Canada?
I seriously wonder if we really need Bill C-5, which has several elements that I find worrisome.
I am wondering whether the consolidation of this agency is really necessary and whether it is in the best interest of taxpayers—an expression so dear to our Conservative government—to finance this administrative structure as a separate entity within the existing health care network.
I truly believe that this bill came about in direct response to the SARS crisis in the Toronto area in 2003.
In my view, the government thinks that this intrusion in health care, an area of jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces, is justified largely because of the serious and unfortunate experience with SARS in 2003.
We agree with the parliamentary secretary regarding the important debate on the state of public health in Canada triggered by the SARS crisis. Nevertheless, I would point out that, at the time, the various players in the Quebec health care system agreed that, if the crisis had happened in Quebec, it would not have been as serious as it was in Ontario. In fact, Quebec was ready. The well-established and well-structured Institut national de santé publique du Québec was there precisely to respond to that kind of event. 
Quebec has an action plan ready to be carried out in the event of an emergency situation within its borders and it has well-established, responsible human resources.
Furthermore, Quebec has developed a public health culture and public health practices that are often cited as examples all over the world. Furthermore, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec was consulted for its expertise by members of the working committee from Ontario responsible for making recommendations regarding the creation of a health promotion and protection agency in Ontario. Their report was tabled in March 2006 and the agency should be created by 2007.
The SARS crisis in Toronto, in a sense, prompted the creation of that agency in Ontario. At first glance, the agency would seem to play the same role as the Institut national de santé publique du Québec.
In short, because in its area of jurisdiction Quebec has put in place what is required to respond to this type of crisis, because Quebec is rigorous and has developed remarkable expertise in its role as protector of public health, in addition to collaborating with the various players in this area, the Bloc Québécois does not feel it is necessary to give this status to the Public Health Agency of Canada, as provided for in Bill C-5.
I really do not see how the new status and the new powers of the Public Health Agency of Canada, which will have an office in Quebec, will help to better deal with a future influenza pandemic, for example. Each province must put in place its own public health structure, one that is well co-ordinated and well run.
I do not believe it necessary to squander large amounts of money on a heavier bureaucracy in order to establish and conduct coordination of provincial activities in the area of health promotion and prevention. I do not see how this agency per se will make it possible to react more quickly.
The parliamentary secretary to the health minister stated in May, and I quote:
 —everyone in Canada can benefit by working together...if there were, heaven forbid, a pandemic influenza we would need to have a coordinated effort throughout Canada to deal with the issue. 
He added that “we would need a coordinated effort throughout the world”.
The parliamentary secretary to the health minister leads us to believe that, at present, the provinces, territories and the WHO are not working together, and that Bill C-5 would solve this problem.
I would not want the parliamentary secretary to think that I am against collaborating and cooperating, or that I have anything against concerted efforts. I want him to know that what I am against is duplicating structures, creating another bureaucracy, unnecessary spending, duplication, and intrusion by the federal government in Quebec's areas of responsibility.
I am for better health protection for Quebeckers and Canadians while ensuring both efficiency and effectiveness. The most appropriate actors for this remain the experts designated by the provinces.
In Quebec, the public health action plans are coordinated by the director of the Institut national de santé publique, who is responsible for cooperating with his counterparts in the other provinces, federal officials and the WHO in the event of an epidemic or pandemic.
The problem is that people's needs in terms of health and social services are experienced in Quebec and the provinces, while the money is in Ottawa.
Take for example Quebec's ongoing planning activities in the area of health promotion.
In Quebec, every provincial, regional and local expert agrees that the top health promotion priority is addressing the problems of our overweight and obese youth. Allow me to quote the following:
 The scope of this public health problem has prompted the Government of Quebec to identify obesity prevention as a government priority...The institute's work also contributes to the development of preventive interventions based primarily on changes to political, economic, socio-cultural, agricultural and food, and built environments that will make it easier to adopt healthy weight management behaviours while taking care not to intensify the excessive preoccupation with weight. 
That is a rather concrete example showing that, in Quebec, we have identified among our health promotion priorities the issue of excess weight in our young people. The response methods selected and used are suited to the culture and values of Quebeckers.
If we visit the website of the Canadian agency, we can see that it too has national strategies dealing with weight and excess weight. 
Thus, a Quebecker doing Internet research would come across a Canadian strategy and a Quebec strategy to battle excessive body weight. Personally, as a taxpayer and a citizen, I see this as a waste of public funds. Running a health promotion campaign involves all sorts of activities: brochures, flyers, radio and television ads. The federal government is spending money, and so is the Quebec government. This is a clear, blatant example that shows taxpayers that spending is being duplicated.
I have one more example. Even though I only have a minute left, I would like to take the time to provide one last example, which is about the fight against cancer.
These days, cancer is a very serious, increasingly common illness that affects many Quebeckers and Canadians. Quebec has its own strategy for fighting cancer. On the federal level, Canada has created its own national strategy. As a Quebecker, I find myself up against the same situation as in the other example I just gave. We are presented with two strategies, complete with different kinds of promotional and educational materials. This is another blatant example of unacceptable duplication of spending. 
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois is committed to supporting the other parties in this House when it is in the best interest of Quebec. However, we cannot support a project in which the government seeks to duplicate services and create new bureaucratic structures. 
Mr. Steven Fletcher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments. I have to say they were quite disappointing because there were a lot of inaccuracies and misstatements.
With respect to the Canadian strategy for cancer control, it is true that the government put $260 million toward a five year strategy. When the Conservatives were in opposition, I brought forward a motion to fully fund and implement the strategy. Unfortunately it did not happen with the Liberal government but our government is going to make it happen. 
The strategy will provide coordination of best practices in cancer. If something is going well in Quebec, Quebec will be able to convey that knowledge to British Columbia, Alberta or P.E.I., for example. The same is true if something is going well in another party of the country. Quebec could benefit from that knowledge. 
The other part of the strategy is research. The federal government plays a significant role in cancer research. It is ludicrous for the member to suggest that the research that will be conducted within the cancer strategy will not have the potential of helping people in Quebec. 
With regard to the larger picture, we hear the same tired lines from the Bloc Québécois all the time about duplication and provincial jurisdiction. That is not the case with this bill. This bill allows for the coordination of resources to deal with a pandemic. Pandemics do not respect borders. Moreover, the Canada Health Act and the powers that the Minister of Health has are well known. The Public Health Agency is part of that. The health minister already has the power to deal with public health issues. The Public Health Agency falls under the responsibilities of the Minister of Health. It is not an encroachment. It allows the health minister to better deal with the challenges faced by all Canadians, including Quebeckers. The Public Health Agency also has to deal with our international obligations.
Would the member agree that pandemics do not respect borders? A simple yes or no answer would be fine.
[Interjection]
Claude DeBellefeuille: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for listening to my speech. Perhaps he missed half of it, I do not know. He arrived almost at the end of my speech.
I can say, in answer to his question, that I think he is right; germs, bacteria and so on know no boundaries. This is an undeniable fact. He must understand that the Bloc Québécois is not opposed to strategies for fighting cancer. However, we believe that this is a provincial responsibility, that this comes under the province's jurisdiction and that we can cooperate with a federal authority. 
We want the federal government to give us the money so that we can implement our own strategy for promoting health and fighting cancer. Indeed, Quebec is always prepared and it is already doing so, since the Department of Health is part of the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control. We are already cooperating.
Consequently, why is it so necessary to create an entity and to use public funds to support a structure that, in my opinion, is not relevant? I believe that Quebec is currently cooperating with federal authorities, and that it is doing so very well. Why duplicate our health promotion and cancer control activities when each province is doing this well and we are already cooperating with federal authorities?
The Speaker: We will now go to statements by members. There will be five minutes left for questions and comments when the debate resumes.

Statements By Members
SportsMr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the middle of the Stanley Cup finals and the World Cup for soccer, I am reminded of the importance of sports at all levels in the lives of Canadians.
On June 24, the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum will hold its annual induction ceremony in St. Marys, Ontario.
In the coming week, Softball Canada's Senior Women's National team will be participating in a series of exhibition games in southern Ontario, including a game in the small town of Milverton.
On June 30, the Monkton World Fastball Invitational will begin in Monkton, Ontario with teams from across Canada and the United States.
I have always been a big supporter of sports, especially at the local level. I hope that this summer all members will enjoy the variety of sporting events offered in their ridings.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to all the coaches, volunteers, parents and players who give their time to keep sporting events running in our communities.
Jobie NutarakNancy Karetak-Lindell: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I inform the House that Jobie Nutarak, of Pond Inlet, Nunavut, died unexpectedly as the result of an unfortunate snowmobile accident while hunting on Saturday, April 29.
Mr. Nutarak took great pride in being the first confirmed elected member of the first Nunavut legislature in 1999. As a hunter, he symbolized what our new territory would represent. He was then elected Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in Nunavut on March 9, 2004.
Active in Inuit organizations and the land claims process, Jobie earned great respect with his ability to calm heated debates and direct the participants to a resolution where all were happy.
This is a tragic loss to all Nunavummiut and, indeed, to all Canadians.
I would ask the House to join me in expressing condolences to his wife, Joanna, and his children, Dennis, Harvey, Marc, Angela and Melanie. Our thoughts are with them and the community of Pond Inlet at this sad time.
Claude VilleneuveMr. Robert Bouchard (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Claude Villeneuve, a university professor and head of the ECO-conseil program at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, was honoured with a 2006 Canadian Environment Award at a gala ceremony on June 5, 2006, in Vancouver. 
A biologist by training, he earned a silver prize in the “climate change” category. I must underscore that Mr. Villeneuve has earned several honours in the past, including scientist of the year in 2001, awarded by CBC. 
In addition to being a leader in environmental matters in Quebec, Claude Villeneuve also acts as a consultant for UNESCO and the United Nations Development Programme.
The Bloc Québécois would like to congratulate this brilliant environmentalist, whose work and international acclaim are a credit to the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area and to all of Quebec.
Elections CanadaPat Martin: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the NDP would not dare spend one nickel over our election spending limits for fear of the dire consequences with which we are always threatened. Therefore, we were shocked to learn that the member for Newmarket—Aurora spent $241,000 on her election campaign, and Elections Canada seems to find nothing wrong with that.
There were unreported corporate donations of illegal size. The $75,000 she spent on her election night was more than I was allowed to spend on my entire campaign. What gives? Do we have elections--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. I remind hon. members that Standing Order 31 statements cannot be used for personal attacks. They can be used for attacks on policy, maybe, but the hon. member seems to be going after one hon. member and not the general policy. I would invite him to confine his remarks to a more policy-oriented discussion.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, my point is, do we have election financing laws or are these just suggested guidelines that only suckers like me follow?
I will not tolerate any double standards. The integrity of our electoral system depends on the fair application and the enforcement of the rules. There has to be consequences for those who would abuse those rules, or we might as well have no rules at all.
 Law and order means more than just street crime. Law and order should apply to the application of election financing laws. I call upon the elections commissioner to investigate and enforce those rules.
Mariette Carrier-FraserMr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, my colleagues, and particularly the Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages, I would like to congratulate Mariette Carrier-Fraser on her appointment as the new chairperson of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario.
On countless occasions over the course of her long and productive career in the public service, Ms. Carrier-Fraser has demonstrated her commitment to the Franco-Ontarian community.
There is no doubt that this eloquent woman of high calibre and remarkable experience will demonstrate the leadership needed to ensure the development of the Franco-Ontarian community. Several challenges lie ahead, but I do not doubt for an instant that she will meet them brilliantly, with the help of the AFO board of directors. 
Once again, I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to Mariette Carrier-Fraser on her new position. 
IranHon. Bryon Wilfert (Richmond Hill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Baha'is of Iran have been persecuted throughout their history. With the triumph of the Islamic revolution in 1979, the persecution has been systematized. More than 200 Baha'is have been executed or killed, hundreds more have been imprisoned and tens of thousands have been deprived of jobs, pensions, businesses and educational opportunities.
The approximate 300,000 member Baha'i community is the largest religious minority in Iran. The Baha'is have been oppressed solely because of religious intolerance. The progressive stands of the Baha'is on women's issues, education have particularly infuriated Muslim clerics.
 This problem however has crossed borders. A group of Baha'is in my riding are concerned that their relatives in Iran are at risk from the increasingly aggressive Islamic regime.
 In recent months I have written the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding a series of short term arrests of Baha'is on undeclared charges. The pattern of actions by the Iranian authorities is threatening. It is essential that Canada play a role in promoting human rights for Baha'is around the world.
Tourism WeekMr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week was Tourism Week in Canada. It is one week of the year that brings together many of the 180,000 businesses and organizations, large and small, to celebrate their success and remind us all of the tremendous contribution this industry makes to our nation.
Spending by business and leisure travellers in Canada amounted to $57.5 billion in 2004. It accounted for 615,000 direct jobs and brought in $8.6 billion in federal tax revenue. C'est très important.
Between now and 2015, the tourism industry worldwide is expected to grow an average of 4.6% per year. That represents a tremendous opportunity for our country.
I know the Tourism Industry Association of Canada and its provincial and territorial partners will continue to advance the cause of tourism. I commend them for helping to make Canada the world-class destination we know it to be.
LeucanNicole Demers: Mr. Speaker, on June 11 Leucan held its third annual head shaving challenge. Participants put a price on their own head and agreed to have it shaved if people pledged that amount. 
This fundraising and awareness-raising activity provides an opportunity to show our solidarity with children suffering from cancer. It takes the drama out of hair loss, makes it easier for the children to accept their treatments and helps them fit into their environment better.
As a survivor of this terrible disease, I know what these children and their parents are going through. This cause is dear to my heart, and that is why I asked for people's support.
I am very proud that they responded so generously. With their help, I was able to raise nearly $4,000 to improve the quality of life of children who are truly in need. Their solidarity touched me deeply. I thank them for their heartwarming response. 
Canadian ForcesMr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canada is committed to assisting in the development of a free, democratic and peaceful Afghanistan. We are helping the people of Afghanistan in many ways, but the work of our soldiers to bring stability to the countryside is a precondition for progress.
My constituents and I are grateful to our troops for their valour and dedication, to giving hope to the Afghan people.
 The community of Redwater has decided to show their support by hosting a Support Your Troops Day on July 15. I invite everyone to attend this celebration and bring a donation for the troops. The event will include the dedication of a Memorial Wall, at the Legion, to the fallen soldiers of Afghanistan and the collection of personal items and treats to send to our soldiers.
Everyone in Redwater is excited about this event, which will include displays of military vehicles, personnel from CFB Edmonton as well as the Edmonton city Police Pipe Band.
Our soldiers are risking their lives for Canada and they deserve our full support.
National Public Service WeekMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, National Public Service Week is coming to an end, and we must mark this event.
I want to express my sincere appreciation and my support for the people working in the public service of Canada.
The public service of Canada is a vital part of what makes Canadian society run smoothly. It is made up of qualified, skilled, conscientious, dedicated people who work to improve the welfare of Canadians and who implement the programs that reflect our core national values.
I think it is especially important to recognize the excellent work done by the men and women of this major public institution. Too often still, we hear derogatory comments about our public servants, when we should acknowledge and appreciate the value of their work.
I thank the employees of the public service of Canada, for their loyal service to Canadians.
Agnes MacphailMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Agnes Macphail, who in 1921 was the first elected female MP in Canada. She was born in 1890 in Proton Station in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
 Agnes Macphail was a Conservative. She was a big supporter of agriculture and an active spokesperson for the United Farmers of Ontario. She fought for old age pensions, prison reform and farmers' co-operatives and she founded the Elizabeth Fry Society of Canada.
As people enter the village of Ceylon, a sign has already been erected that says, “You are now entering Agnes Macphail country”.
Next weekend a great group of women from Grey County, led by the Reverend Donna Mann, will dedicate a cairn in the name of Agnes Macphail.
Today I have the honour of working in the House with this great group of female MPs, some of whom will attend this dedication ceremony. 
I am very proud to say that Agnes Macphail from Grey County helped to pave the way for these great present day women.
Citizenship and ImmigrationMs. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, members may be aware that the World Peace Forum will take place in Vancouver later this month, with attendees coming from over 90 countries around the world to participate in this prestigious event.
Unfortunately, the forum will be missing one participant. Myrian Nahimana is a young woman from Burundi, who was invited to attend by the women's working group of the peace forum. She cannot attend because she has been refused a visa by the Canadian Embassy in Nairobi.
Myrian has so much to offer to the forum and to Canadians. Among other issues, she is due to speak about the impact of war and violence on women and girls in Burundi and the experience of young people living with HIV and AIDS. These are such important issues and ones which affect so many citizens, not just in Burundi but around the world.
The decision to deny a visa to this young woman will deny us the incredibly important contribution she has to make. I strongly urge the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to reconsider this decision and allow Myrian the chance to share with us her valuable insight and experience.
Canada PostHon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week the House debated a motion directing Canada Post to restore traditional rural mail delivery. Members on all side of the House indicated their support for the motion by the member for Oak Ridges—Markham. 
To act on this quickly, the minister responsible for Canada Post should instruct Canada Post to immediately resume rural delivery to residents.
Last week more than 400 people in greater Fredericton attended community meetings and offered thoughtful advice. Many residents have said that they are willing and able to move their mailboxes to safer locations immediately.
This situation has had a major impact on seniors, the sick and shut-ins and persons with disabilities. People have been reasonable and fair under the circumstances, however their patience is wearing thin. Some people still do not have community mailboxes and are driving 10 to 50 kilometres back and forth to see if they even have mail.
Parliament has spoken. It is time to end this disruption of mail to these Canadians.
L'Info Saint-Élie-d'OrfordMs. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 20th year of operation for the community newspaper, L'Info Saint-Élie-d'Orford, and I am honoured to be a partner of this monthly paper which reflects the vitality of the people of Saint-Élie-d'Orford.
This newspaper was born in 1986, out of the will of citizens who were looking for more local information.
Despite its difficult beginnings, its valiant founders rolled up their shirt sleeves, and the once-small newspaper grew into one with a circulation of nearly 3,500 copies today.
As evidenced by the variety of columns, covering the environment, cooking, history, finance, language, outdoor recreation, municipal life and many more topics, L'Info Saint-Élie-d'Orford magnificently fulfills its information and communication mandate.
I thank the organizations, the partners, and especially the volunteers who operate the paper for such a captivating and informative newspaper. Long live this commendable initiative.
Saint Stephen ChurchHon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 11, I had the honour of attending a very special event in Lachine in my riding. 
The parish of Saint Stephen celebrated a mass to commemorate the 175th anniversary of the Saint Stephen Church building and the 184th anniversary of the parish.
Saint Stephen is the oldest Anglican church on the island of Montreal. For so many years now, Saint Stephen has been a pillar of our community, a place of reflection and of spirituality. Saint Stephen's hymn proudly affirms:
  God bless thee, dear Saint Stephen's!  Long may thine influence stand,  To light us on our pathway Unto the promised land.  
I, along with many other Montrealers, very much share this wish.

Oral Questions
National DefenceHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to new airlift capacity for the Canadian armed forces, the defence minister says that no deals have yet been made but the industry minister was out shopping yesterday in Washington.
Let me ask the defence minister about the principles that he will follow in pursuing this proposed purchase of airlift capacity.
Would the minister guarantee that any new airplanes will, first and foremost, meet the requirements of the Canadian military, in the order of priority as recommended by the military and undistorted by the political preferences of the minister? 
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as I said previously and I will say again, no decision has been made on equipment. 
When a decision is made, it will be in the interests of the military, of Canadians and of industry because there will be a lot of industrial benefits. I think that is all I need to say.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the minister is fond of deprecating the record of the previous government but I would like to inform him that I am proud to have been the minister who provided our Canadian armed forces with its biggest budget increase in 20 years, bigger than anything done by the previous Mulroney Conservative government and 13 times bigger than anything done by the present government.
Will the minister guarantee that any new Canadian airplanes will be based here in Canada, maintained and repaired in a manner that maximizes Canadian investment technology and jobs, controlled by Canadian decision makers and not subject to a foreign veto.
Will the minister offer that guarantee?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no final decisions have been made about procurement in the government's tremendous program to rebuild the military after 13 years of Liberal neglect, a program that yesterday was commended by the secretary general of NATO who travels throughout the world criticizing governments, like the previous Liberal government, for having underfunded the military. 
We will give our fighting men and women in uniform the equipment they need to do the job. Unlike the Liberals, we will not rent foreign planes to get our soldiers to where they need to go. We will have Canadian equipment, owned by the Canadian government, to deliver our soldiers to where they need to be.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that, in the presence of the Minister of National Defence, the parliamentary secretary intervenes to block the flow of information and conversation.
The former government put $13 billion into the Canadian military, the biggest increase in 20 years, bigger than anything the former Conservatives had done and 13 times bigger than the present government has done. 
We have no guarantee of military priorities, no guarantee of sovereign control and no guarantee of Canadian jobs. 
Could the government at least assure us that the process will be transparent, with open competitive bidding?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that the procurement process will be open, fair and transparent.
I would remind members that the previous government was famous for talking and talking. In the 13 years the Liberals delivered three major projects: used submarines, the famous Chrétien helicopters and light armoured vehicles. 
All they ever did was talk, talk, talk. They never performed.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government says that it has not yet made a decision regarding the C-17s. The Minister of National Defence knows full well that this matter has gone through all the cabinet stages. They are just waiting for the House to adjourn and then will announce this project because they do not like answering embarrassing questions. Yet, experts agree that a call for tenders can save taxpayers between 10% and 30%.
Why does the government refuse to give taxpayers the benefit of a more intelligent procurement strategy? Is it because the Minister of National Defence knows that a bid by Airbus to provide aircraft would have him up to his neck in a conflict of interest?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, this is incredible and quite frankly disgraceful. The Liberal party is trying to give a lesson on procurement of military equipment when it was the Liberal government that created a crisis for the Department of National Defence. The Conservative government and its Prime Minister are solving the problem created by the Liberal government. That is why we are buying planes that work for our soldiers.
Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, we would like to have a minister who answers; we do not want the official in charge of the Titanic.
The Minister of National Defence takes us for idiots—he probably thinks Canadians are naive, as does the Prime Minister—and then tries to pull a fast one. The Minister of Industry was in Washington yesterday to secretly meet Jim Albaugh, president of Boeing Defense, and it certainly was not to have a beer.
He secretly went to Washington to make a deal. Not only are we giving our neighbours to the south a nice $4.5 billion gift but, in addition, they are told they need not go to any bother and that we will go there to report to them, just them and no public servants. 
Can the Minister of National Defence tell us if the C-17 planes, like the Minister of Industry, have to go through Washington? Do the new rules for purchasing military planes have to go through Washington—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Defence.
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, no decision has been made with respect to procurement. When it is, it will be open, fair and transparent. The public will be aware. It will meet the needs of the military according to its requirements so everyone will be happy, including industry.
Kyoto ProtocolMs. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec has assumed its responsibilities. It acknowledged the Kyoto objectives and presented its plan to reduce greenhouse gases. This plan was lauded by a number of groups as a step in the right direction. However, the question remains whether the federal government will support this effort financially.
Can the Minister of the Environment promise today to grant the $328 million Quebec is asking for? It is a question of fairness, since according to the Premier of Quebec, Ontario has already received its share.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the federal government welcomes any effort from the provinces to resolve environmental problems, including the reduction of greenhouse gases. We will work together with all the provinces. Nonetheless, if the provinces want to spend money on their own jurisdictions, then that is a provincial responsibility, not a federal one.
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, when asked about the $328 million Quebec is seeking, the environment minister's press secretary said that the issue was closed.
Are we to understand from the environment minister's press secretary that she has totally given up on signing a bilateral agreement on the transfer of funds to Quebec for implementing the Kyoto protocol? 
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, all levels of government have to work together to address environmental issues. That is why, among other things, we introduced in our budget a tax credit for public transit users which will in fact benefit Quebeckers. If the Government of Quebec wants to invest in its own jurisdiction, we will respect that and we will not get involved. 
Natural ResourcesMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government's approach is inconsistent. On the one hand, the Minister of the Environment claims that her non-existent made-in-Canada plan justifies refusing financial support for Quebec's plan to reach the Kyoto targets. On the other hand, the Minister of Natural Resources has frozen the WPPI for wind energy and cancelled the EnerGuide program.
If this government really believes in Kyoto, it should show some consistency by reinstituting the EnerGuide program and the WPPI. What is it waiting for?
Mr. Christian Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is what the Department of Natural Resources is doing: it is providing Canadians with good management. A few months after coming to power, we are asked to move ahead blindly and launch a bunch of different programs. Canadians gave us a mandate to establish responsible government. That is what we will do. We are open to suggestions, but we will manage things responsibly.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, it was irresponsible of the government to cancel the EnerGuide program. That is reality. The government's inconsistency is having direct negative effects on the development of energy systems. The government seems to be alone in not realizing this.
Is the Minister of Natural Resources aware that by not reinstating these programs, he is sending the same message as his environment colleague who scorns the Kyoto protocol?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, one thing the Minister of Natural Resources is aware of is that the opposition is asking us to use the Liberal approach, which did not work and which led to a 35% increase in greenhouse gases. That would be irresponsible. We have a real plan that will work. 
Softwood LumberMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 112 softwood lumber companies have taken legal action against this government, because it is preventing Canadian companies from winning their case before trade tribunals and receiving full reimbursement.
The National Association of Home Builders in the United States confirms that the agreement would have had disastrous consequences. This agreement would have destabilized prices and created uncertainty. Fortunately, this government failed.
Will the Prime Minister finally see the light at the end of the tunnel and announce loan guarantees for the industry?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, we have already announced an agreement with the United States that will secure the future of the forestry industry.
This agreement will put an end to years of expensive legal wrangling and will put more than $4 billion U.S. back in the coffers of Canadian softwood lumber companies. That is good for the industry and good for Canadian workers.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should ask the Alberta industry how it feels about that. 
The Conservatives failed. They botched the deal because they are horrible negotiators. What government hands over all the cards to the other side before negotiations begin? That one does and the Conservatives are flogging a dead horse, which is worrisome, because it means they will sign anything to try to save this badly botched deal.
The minister of trade failed as an MP, and now he has botched the work in his ministry. 
Why does the government not do the right thing and unsuspend the ECC challenge that will lead to the illegal tariff stopping and win this thing once and for all?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade deserves praise from all members of the House. He fought hard to establish a good deal for Canada.
This government will stand up for Canadian interests, as we have done in this agreement, as opposed to the Liberal Party which was supported by the NDP at the time, which allowed seven years of costly litigation to suck $5 billion out of the industry, out of Canadian pockets, and allowed the Americans to ride roughshod over Canada's interests. We will never allow that to happen.
National DefenceRodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, it has become more and more obvious that Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes is preparing the briefing books for the defence minister: “I know nothing”.
Sovereignty is an issue in a new airlift capacity for the Canadian armed forces. The minister must tell the House, will new planes be based in Canada? Will the repair and maintenance be done by Canadians? Will Canadians control where the planes go and what they can do? Yes or no?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, as I said, no decision has been made on any equipment. Whenever we acquire aircraft, the aircraft are under the control and ownership of the air force. They will be dispatched under the control of the air force.
I do not know whether I can answer the question with a yes or no. The air force will control the aircraft.
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, Newkirk and Kinch would not be surprised by that answer.
Denial is not support for the military. Neither is designing sole source contracts to curry U.S. favour or please the minister's lobbyist friends.
I will ask the question again, and instead of insulting the intelligence of Canadians, I would like to have an answer. Why is the minister supporting an airlift contract that will curtail Canadian sovereignty?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, talking about insulting Canadians, that member's party, the previous government, spent $600 million on paper instead of on helicopters.
 The Liberal government, when we needed to lift our troops and equipment, had to beg the Americans or go to the commercial market to get used aircraft to move our troops. That is the proud record of the Liberal government.
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, the government is preparing to announce the purchase of three supply ships worth $2.1 billion. Less than three years ago, the Minister of National Defence was a very well-paid lobbyist for three of the firms in the running for these contracts. This casts doubt on Canada's reputation and credibility on the international market.
When will the Minister of National Defence do the only honourable thing and withdraw from this file?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I will do the honourable thing and that is to get the armed forces the equipment it needs. We are going to overcome the 13 years of decay that the previous government did to the armed forces. We are going to recruit 13,000 new regulars and 10,000 more reserves. We are going to restore pride and operational efficiency to the military. That is what we are going to do. 
Marcel Proulx: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence constantly claims that he meets all the past and present conflict of interest rules. That is because no prime minister ever dared appoint a well-paid lobbyist to the department he had lobbied. Even Sir John A. Macdonald never did that.
Why does this government not recognize that this is unacceptable? Why does the government not amend the Accountability Act to avoid situations like this?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. Before the minister answers, if members wish to carry on discussions, they are free to do so in the lobbies. We are in question period now and these constant conversations that are making it very difficult for those of us who are concentrating on question period to hear must terminate. Members may continue them elsewhere, or stay quiet in here.
The hon. Minister of National Defence now has the floor.
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, there is such a case of envy on the other side. For 13 years those members did nothing in defence. They allowed the defence department to deteriorate. In four months this government has moved quickly to restore pride and efficiency to the armed forces and those members have this great envy that we are doing something that they did not do.
TaxationMs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on December 19, 2005, the Prime Minister came to Quebec and made a solemn commitment to correct the fiscal imbalance. However, we are concerned by the finance minister's comments and especially by those of the Prime Minister who are both saying, barely five months later, that the fiscal imbalance has been corrected by 50%.
In saying this, is the Prime Minister not simply reneging on his promise?
Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are studying the O'Brien report carefully. Other reports have come out. We also will be talking to the provinces and territories about the fiscal balance soon and over the summer. Resolution will come. We expect to introduce legislation in the fall, but only after full discussions.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister assert that the fiscal imbalance is currently being corrected, even though he ended the child care agreement, causing Quebec to lose $807 million for the next three years, and given that the amount in transfer payments for post-secondary education is still lower than it was 10 years ago? Not only has the fiscal imbalance not been corrected, but this government is only increasing it.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly reject the premise of that question. 
The fact of the matter is that this government has worked very hard to make sure that transfers go ahead. The member will know that in the budget, transfers on those issues did take place. In pursuance of achieving a resolution of the fiscal balance, discussions are ongoing and will culminate in legislation in the fall. I urge the member to give input into this process because we want to make sure that the resolution is good for all of Canada.
Telefilm CanadaMr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Telefilm Canada approved funding for seven of 36 feature film projects submitted. While Quebec movies have been setting attendance records year after year, Telefilm Canada, whose budget has been frozen for five years, no longer has the resources to provide adequate support.
When will the Minister of Canadian Heritage increase the budget of the Canada Feature Film Fund by $50 million, in order to promote rather than hinder the development of Quebec film? 
Mr. Jim Abbott (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is very proud of the success of the Quebec film industry. We are very respectful of the industry's needs. We are currently reviewing the feature film policy.
Luc Malo: Some of the projects rejected are by prestigious filmmakers such as Robert Lepage, Charles Binamé, Francis Leclerc and Robert Morin. Furthermore, the amount of Telefilm Canada support for Denys Arcand's movie is placing its production in jeopardy.
Does the minister intend to support the Quebec film industry and its artists or does she prefer to be responsible for its decline? Funds must be released now.
Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the member, we are very proud of the Quebec film industry. We are reviewing our policy. As a matter of fact, the minister is going to be meeting with the producers next week.
Softwood LumberMr. Roger Valley (Kenora, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's PR scheme to ram through a bad softwood deal at the expense of our producers is coming off the rails. As well, the U.S. Court of International Trade has denied a U.S. government request to prevent a determination on the case that challenges the illegal U.S. tariffs on our softwood.
With this ruling set to come over the summer, will the government do the right thing and assure our producers that any softwood deal Canada signs will respect NAFTA, its dispute settlement mechanism will respect Canada's sovereignty, and that it will get fair trade for our producers?
Ms. Helena Guergis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that it was in fact this government that was able to negotiate a deal, where the previous Liberal government failed miserably.
The committee has heard from many witnesses and they have told us time and again that tens of thousand of jobs have been lost because of the softwood lumber dispute. The industry has told us that it must have stability. This is exactly what the Prime Minister is providing.
Roger Valley: Mr. Speaker, some deal. At current market prices, this deal will leave our producers worse off than the current status quo. If the prices fall further, the deal will get worse.
Producers in Ontario predict a 20% job loss. Now Domtar has joined the long and growing list of critics. This deal is failing because the Prime Minister put his own PR scheme and rehabilitation of his trade minister ahead of Canada's softwood lumber industry. 
Instead of misleading Canadians about the endless litigation when a final determination could be heard within weeks, will the government allow Canadian industry to secure some leverage and justice before we agree to go back to the table and not sell us out?
Helena Guergis: Mr. Speaker, while the opposition may be happy to continue to play politics with the thousands of families and lives that depend on lumber for a paycheque, this government is not. This government is focused on reaching stability. 
Witnesses have also told committee time and again that continued litigation is what to be expected without this deal. The only people who benefit from continued litigation are lawyers. This government and the Prime Minister are focused on the families and the communities that have been devastated by the softwood lumber dispute.
Mr. Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every day more and more stakeholders affected by the softwood lumber agreement are taking a second look at how this deal is bad for Canadian producers. The latest is the Council of Forest Industries, which is very concerned about protecting British Columbia's market based timber pricing and the U.S. attack on our value added industry.
When will the Prime Minister or his minister stand up for B.C.'s lumber remanufacturers and stop working for the benefit of U.S. mills?
Helena Guergis: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that it was his party that was content with 100% of nothing for the softwood lumber industry.
The Prime Minister is focused on an end to litigation. We are focused on guaranteeing stability for the industry. We are focused on rejuvenation for the softwood lumber industry. We are also working toward the return of billions of dollars back to Canadian lumber producers.
Don Bell: Mr. Speaker, the record will show that the minister did not answer the question.
The American lumber lobby has successfully manipulated the Prime Minister's softwood lumber agreement and is punishing remanufacturers with a border tax. The Prime Minister says he is not a puppet of the Americans, but he sure seems to be a lapdog of the American lumber lobby.
When will the Prime Minister or his minister stand up for Canada?
Helena Guergis: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that it was not too long ago in the House that the member for Outremont was actually asking us to speed up the process on the softwood lumber deal. Then we had on the very same day the Leader of the Opposition telling us to slow down. 
I suggest to the House that this is the reason why the previous Liberal government was not able to negotiate a deal on the softwood lumber dispute. 
The Prime Minister has focused on the families and communities that have been devastated by this dispute.
JusticeMr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, just last fall the previous Liberal government introduced a bill that doubled minimum sentences for gun crimes. That bill was seconded by the member for Wascana. This week the same member and his party voted against a Conservative bill that called for minimum sentences. Canadians are wondering why just six months ago someone could vote for something and now against something.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice explain to the members opposite why minimum sentences are necessary to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians?
Mr. Rob Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I cannot explain to the hon. member why Liberals say one thing during an election and then do another after an election. 
I will tell him what Canadians told us. They said they were fed up with violent gun crime and they were fed up with a Liberal revolving door answer to crime.
With Bill C-10 we introduced tougher gun crime laws to ensure that serious and repeat firearms offences will be met by appropriately stiff minimum penalties. I am very pleased that Bill C-10 passed second reading and is being referred to committee despite the Liberals' flip-flop on this important issue.
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 100 Ontario first nations chiefs joined the Caledonia blockade last week to show their support for Six Nations. Chiefs in Manitoba announced this week that they will blockade railway lines to protest the lack of action on land claims.
Will the Conservative government admit today that it has the responsibility for land claims in this country and its delay in settling those land claims led to the Caledonia dispute?
Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is very committed to the settling of land claims and it should be pointed out that there were many unresolved issues that were inherited by this government from the previous Liberal administration.
We are committed to the communities that are involved in the Caledonia process. The minister has appointed a very senior former minister, Barbara McDougall, to be our representative on the ground and we look forward to seeing this situation resolved peacefully.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the government keeps trying to wriggle out of its responsibilities when it comes to this fundamental relationship between the Crown and first nations. The Ontario government has just bought out the Henco lands estimated at being worth $45 million. Yet this government only budgeted $30 million this year to settle land claims in the entire country.
Will the minister admit that the government continues to avoid the settlement of land claims and it has abandoned leadership on this issue?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we have been very engaged in the process. We have been involved at the table, in terms of the Caledonia discussions, from the beginning and, thankfully, we have seen progress. We have seen many of the barricades removed and some real progress being made.
I would like to once again state that in fact there are a considerable number of outstanding claims and our government will proceed with them as soon as possible.
Trans-Labrador HighwayMr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in an election letter to Premier Williams, the Prime Minister supposedly promised, “Yes, a Conservative government would support a cost-shared agreement to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway”. 
The Trans-Labrador Highway was defined by the council of ministers responsible for transportation as the entire length from Labrador City to L'Anse au Clair, including phase III between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Cartwright.
Can the transport minister confirm that by “complete” he means the construction of phase III and paving the entire Trans-Labrador Highway?
Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we saw the degradation of a number of Canada's very important highways across this country for 13 years. We made a number of commitments throughout the course of the election campaign and we are going to fulfill all of our campaign commitments. 
Todd Russell: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that the Liberals put $360 million into the Trans-Labrador Highway. We are building the highway there.
Premier Williams was also quoted as saying that the Prime Minister has committed to a fifty-fifty cost share for the Trans-Labrador Highway. Some commitment. It did not make it into the budget and the Minister of Transport says in writing that it does not even qualify for his measly infrastructure program.
The Labrador construction season will soon be over. Can the transport minister confirm that the Conservatives promised to cost share the Trans-Labrador Highway fifty-fifty? Will he keep his broken promise or are we just naive to think this in the first place?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, we will not be keeping any Liberal broken promises. We will be keeping our own promises, of course. Canadians voted for change on January 23 and that is exactly what we will provide. We made a number of commitments over the course of the campaign and we will deliver on our campaign commitments.
Child CareMs. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Statistics Canada reported that Canadian women are involuntarily dropping out of the workforce and researchers linked it directly to a lack of child care spaces. Most of the dropping out is concentrated in the west, which is already experiencing a labour shortage. 
Recently, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development indicated that she viewed women dropping out of the workforce as a success story. In light of this report, does the minister still consider women dropping out of the workforce because they cannot find child care a success story?
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the statistics point to multi-faceted reasons for those findings. They also point to encouraging developments regarding an increased participation in post-secondary education.
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, the government obviously does not even recognize a worrying trend when one appears.
Women dropping out will exacerbate the shortage of skilled workers Canada is already facing. The supply of child care spaces is not a women's issue; it is about productivity and therefore is a national issue.
What will the minister do to reverse this trend and help women who are dropping out because of a lack of child care spaces?
Lynne Yelich: Mr. Speaker, the government supports equality. We will continue to support policies and programs which contribute to the well-being of all Canadians, men and women.
First World OutgamesMr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from July 29 to August 5, 2006, the World Outgames will host 12,000 athletes and sports enthusiasts from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities. In a spirit of inclusivity, these first World Outgames are first and foremost a celebration of sport, culture and human rights regardless of sexual orientation. 
These games will be the most important sports event held in Montreal since 1976.
Does the Prime Minister intend to participate in the opening ceremonies of the Outgames to be held at Olympic Stadium on July 29, together with his Quebec counterpart, Jean Charest, and the mayor of Montreal, Gérald Tremblay, and to welcome the athletes participating in these games?
Hon. Michael Chong (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for Sport, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's schedule has many demands on it. Many requests are made, many more than could possibly be filled by the Prime Minister's Office. Each event is considered on its own merit, and in this case, there is no exception to the rule either.
Events like this will be considered on their merits and in the fullness of time, the Prime Minister's Office will determine and announce his schedule for the summer months.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that his refusal to participate in the opening of the Outgames sends a negative message to the whole world with regard to respect for this very important event?
Michael Chong: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated a number of times in the House, there are many demands on the Prime Minister's schedule, many more demands than could possibly be met within the time constraints that he has.
Each and every event request that is given to the Prime Minister's Office is considered on its own merits, and this event will be no exception to that rule.
TransportationMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an internal analysis from the Department of Transport might actually justify the major reservations, if not plain and simple opposition, some department officials have about reducing the number of flight attendants on passenger flights within Canada. 
Will the minister confirm the existence of such a document and immediately make it public, given that his party promised, and has apparently already forgotten its promise a few months later, to expand Canadians' access to information held by their federal government?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the broad concept of more access to public information, we are very proud to report that just the other day the government passed Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, through the parliamentary legislative committee, which will give Canadians more access to public information.
With regard to the specific issue that the member raises in terms of a ratio for flight attendants, the government believes in security in the air. We believe in proper service and we believe in a level playing field across the industry. We want to ensure our industry is strong and serves all Canadians well.
International DevelopmentMr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as our Prime Minister made clear yesterday by announcing a contribution of $15 million for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, our government actively supports international development.
Small Canadian non-governmental organizations, better known as NGOs, have been anxiously waiting for many years for the government to give them an opportunity to play an important part in the development of civilian society in developing countries.
Could my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, tell the House how the department plans to build a new relationship with Canadian NGOs?
Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the announcement made yesterday that many in the House did not hear was in response to the fact that NGOs and partners within Canada had been cut out of the process of delivering aid to countries which needed our help.
The Minister of International Cooperation yesterday announced a new program that launched a voluntary sector fund of $20 million per year that will go through these NGOs in Canada to help those in other countries.
Federal Accountability ActMs. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week Parliament took one great step to ending cronyism when the special legislative committee looking at the accountability act adopted NDP amendments including the creation of a stronger public appointments commission. The commission will oversee and report on the appointments made by ministers in the current government and all future governments as well. 
Will the government do the right thing and support the creation of the appointments commission or will it follow the lead of the pouting Prime Minister who wanted to take his bat and ball and go home?
Hon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the NDP got off to such a great start with her question and then spoiled it at the end. 
I want to thank members of the New Democratic Party for their support of bringing accountability on issue after issue after issue. They joined the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister in bringing about real accountability ensuring that we have more qualified government appointments.
If this Parliament can do one single thing, it will be to end the culture of entitlement created by the Liberal Party and bring in a culture of accountability. Bill C-2 is the toughest anti-corruption bill in Canadian history and it is--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.
Peggy Nash: Mr. Speaker, not only will this commission have oversight and reporting duties, but future appointments made to it will only be made after the Prime Minister consults with all other parties in the House of Commons. The NDP amendment is a victory for democracy, transparency and accountability. No wonder the Liberals were split on it.
Can the minister tell us when the government will table the name of its next appointee for the appointments commissioner, so that we can get on with cleaning up politics in this country once and for all?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, it would certainly put the Prime Minister in a rather awkward position because he asked the most well respected business leader in Canada, as voted by his colleagues, to come to government to take what was the biggest salary cut in Canadian history in the service of Canadians. It was rather awkward. Would the member suggest we go to the second most trusted person in Canada?
Foreign AffairsBryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, Aung San Suu Kyi, the pro-democracy leader in Burma, spent 10 of the last 16 years under house arrest. She was due to be released on May 27, but her detention was extended. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan appealed to the head of Burma's military junta to free her.
I believe the time has come to demonstrate leadership on this issue and work with fellow member states to embrace the report of former Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Czech President Václav Havel.
Is the Minister of Foreign Affairs prepared to endorse this initiative and take appropriate steps to free Aung San Suu Kyi?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, officials of the Canadian Embassy in Burma met with senior Burmese officials to express Canada's concern about the continuing detention of Aung San Suu Kyi. We are also concerned about her health and we have expressed our deep concern. We are hoping that the Burmese authorities will take some steps to work toward her release.
Atlas of CanadaMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in 1906 the first edition of the Canadian Atlas was published by what is now the Department of Natural Resources. That atlas contained vital information for the European immigrants who helped build this great country. Through its subsequent editions, the atlas has grown and, in 1999, Canada was one of the first countries in the world to publish the atlas entirely on line.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House what the government is doing to commemorate the one hundredth birthday of the atlas?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in this House to acknowledge the success of the Earth Sciences Sector at Natural Resources Canada. Over the past 100 years, the Atlas of Canada has benefited Canada's identity, economy and environment.
I am pleased to announce today that the government will be unveiling a postal stamp celebrating 100 years since the publication of the first Atlas of Canada. We are looking forward to the positive contribution the Atlas of Canada will be making over the next 100 years.
AgricultureMr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today farmers throughout northeastern Saskatchewan are facing economic disaster. Family farms are being abandoned. Credit has run out. Electricity is being turned off. 
The federal promise of $15 per seeded acre is simply not enough. These farmers need substantial help now to survive. Farmer Liz Mackay has just learned that the government is threatening to go after her family for $3,000 in taxes.
Can the Prime Minister explain when he is planning to finally help the farmers of Saskatchewan?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary (for the Canadian Wheat Board) to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister has stepped up for the farmers in Saskatchewan. We have brought forward a green cover program of $15 an acre, which will cover some of the costs they are experiencing in their province.
It is ironic that the NDP is criticizing us, because it was the agriculture minister in Saskatchewan who asked for the $15 that we provided for the farmers in that province. If the provincial government would step up and do the same thing, perhaps those farmers would have some hope in the future.
JusticeRalph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, reference was made in question period earlier today to last year's Liberal bill on mandatory minimum sentences, based on evidence and expert advice and based on science and principle. It was in fact infinitely better than the Conservative Bill C-10.
Since the government has raised the issue, and those members did raise it, favourably referring to the Liberal precedent from last year, will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice agree now to substitute our Liberal bill for Bill C-10? We will pass it immediately.
Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, I will quote from the Liberal platform of last year: “A Liberal government will reintroduce legislation to crack down on violent crimes and gang violence, and to double the mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun-related crimes”. All talk.
 This government took action to protect Canadians.
ManufacturingMr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the oil industry is making record profits and the government continues to keep that industry in its good graces. However, the Quebec and Canadian manufacturing sector has been harshly affected by the increased price of oil and its impact on the value of the Canadian dollar. We are talking about some 38,000 jobs lost this year in addition to the 145,000 jobs lost in 2005. 
Does the Minister of Industry intend to support the Quebec and Canadian manufacturing sector, thereby protecting hundreds of thousands of jobs?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, so far this year 220,000 new jobs have been created in Canada. Unemployment rates are at a historic low. We are committed to lower taxes for all industry and corporations. Our budget was called the best budget in five years by the Canadian Manufacturers &amp; Exporters. We are on the right track and we hope to see the Bloc supporting us throughout this matter.
Points of OrderJohn Baird: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period in a question from the member for Oakville concerning the issue of child care, a number of members on the government side clearly heard the member for Beaches--East York heckle, “You don't give a”--and I regret to say--“goddamn about children”. That expression is clearly unparliamentary. It is clearly insensitive religiously. It is taking the Lord's name in vain. It is clearly a slur that is unparliamentary.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the member to retract her words and apologize, and for goodness' sake, could he call on the member for Wascana to get control of his opposition bench?
Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I regret having used the word “God” and I take that back, but--
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
Maria Minna:  I retract that. I regret that.
But they do not care about children and are impoverishing women in this country. That is true.
The Speaker: I am sure the House appreciates the clarification from the hon. the President of the Treasury Board and the hon. member for Beaches--East York.
The hon. member for New Westminster--Coquitlam is rising on a point of order. We will hear her now.
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound pay tribute to Agnes Macphail earlier in members' statements and talk about Canada's first female member of Parliament, elected in 1921, but it is important to correct the record.
Agnes Macphail was never a Conservative, nor was she ever a Progressive Conservative. She was a radical member of the Progressive Party. She joined the Ginger Group, which later led to the formation of the CCF, the forerunner of the NDP. She was in fact the first leader of the CCF in Ontario. She once said that what gave her strength was hearing the sound of thousands of women following her. Sadly, we have not achieved that.
The Speaker: I am sure the House appreciates the clarification offered by the hon. member, but I would urge her to do another Standing Order 31 on the subject, perhaps next week.
I also have notice of a point of order from the hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, with all the excitement in the House when I was responding to my colleague from the Bloc about the outcome of the discussions this summer, I should have said that there will be proposals coming forward from the government in the fall. There may or may not be legislation, but “proposals” was the word I should have used. I want to clarify that for the House.

Routine Proceedings
Order in Council AppointmentsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made by the government.
Government Response to PetitionsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.
Inuvialuit Final Agreement Implementation Coordinating CommitteeRod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 2003-04 annual report of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement Implementation Coordinating Committee.
Committees of the HouseMr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-2. In accordance with its order of reference of Thursday, April 27, your committee has considered Bill C-2, an act for providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability, and agreed on Wednesday, June 14 to report it with amendments.
Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the fourth report considering the government's response to the 10th report of the first session of the 38th Parliament, and the fifth report on the 2006-07 estimates and the performance of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. The committee is requesting a government response for both reports.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment ActMr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-324, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Welland.
Mr. Speaker, I move for leave to introduce this private member's bill that would change the name of my electoral district from Welland to Niagara South Centre. The name of Welland is a little confusing because the city of Welland is just one of five municipalities within the riding. I believe it is inequitable to name a riding after one community.
 I am going back to a generic name similar to the name of the riding prior to redistribution. I submit that the name Niagara South Centre is a good compromise. At the same time, it does not infringe upon any current provincial riding names in the area.
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsAndy Scott: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present today a petition signed by a number of residents of the riding of Fredericton and surrounding area who are calling upon Parliament to honour the promise of a national child care program by protecting the early learning and child care agreements between the Government of Canada and the provinces.
Helena Guergis: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition with thousands of signatures from individuals not only in my riding of Simcoe--Grey but across Ontario. They are asking the House of Commons to allow senior couples the option to split all their individual retirement income in a manner that would equalize the taxes assessed to each spouse, otherwise known as income splitting. I support this petition.
Mr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in the House today to present a petition on the subject of child care, an issue that is important to many Canadians. This petition comes from the people of the riding of Vancouver Kingsway.
Todd Russell: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to present a petition concerning the crisis in the fishing industry in Labrador. It is signed by numerous constituents in West St. Modeste, Capstan Island, Red Bay and L'Anse au Loup, which are fishing communities in the Labrador Straits. They petition the federal government to immediately bring in adjusted measures to deal with the crisis in the fishery, including retraining, early retirement and economic diversification. I fully support their position. 
Todd Russell: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to present a petition on the aboriginal affairs file from my constituents. They are residents of Black Tickle, Cartwright, Sheshatshiu, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mary's Harbour, Williams Harbour, Port Hope Simpson, Red Bay, Charlottetown, St. Lewis, North West River, Forteau and Lodge Bay. They call upon the Conservative government to honour the November 2005 Kelowna accord. I fully endorse their stance on this matter.
The Speaker: I would remind hon. members that expressing their views in respect of a petition is not in order. They are to table the petition. They are not permitted in the course of presentation to say whether they agree or disagree with it. I have chastised without words one hon. member already today. I hope I will not have to do it again. I would encourage the hon. member for Labrador to comply with the rules in this regard in every respect.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 26, 29, 34, and 38.
Ms. Denise Savoie: With regard to Exercise Trident Fury: (a) how many United States troops and military hardware are part of the exercise; (b) how many troops and military hardware from countries other than Canada and the United States are part of the exercise, broken down by country; (c) is the government aware of the presence of any nuclear-arms capable aircraft participating in the exercise; (d) did the government seek assurances that there would be no nuclear weapons present; (e) does the government consider that there may be any heightened risk of a terrorist attack as a result of the exercise; (f) did the government communicate the nature of the mission to city councils and citizens in the greater Victoria area; (g) will the government guarantee the citizens of the area that there will be no health or environment risks; (h) has there been an environmental assessment of the potential impacts on the environment; and (i) has the government considered cancelling the exercise if there are environmental and security risks?
Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:
(a) Approximately 1000 service personnel from the United States participated in this exercise. Units involved from the United States Navy were the Frigate USS Ingraham and the Fast Combat Stores Support Ship USS Bridge, both from the US Navy’s 3rd Fleet. Units from the United States Air Force included a number of F-15 Fighters, F-16 Fighters, B-52 Bombers, KC-135 Air Refueling Tankers, EA6B Electronic Warfare aircraft and E2C Airborne Early Warning aircraft. Units from the US Air National Guard included a number of F-15 Fighters. During the exercise, 20 US aircraft operated in Canadian airspace from American bases.
 (b) Approximately 1200 service personnel from a variety of nations participated in the exercise. Units involved included the NATO Airborne Early Warning Squadron from Geilenkirchen, Germany with a multi-national crew in the E3A Airborne Early Warning aircraft and the Royal Air Force, RAF, flying the E3D Early Warning Aircraft.
(c) Yes, some of the aircraft participating in the exercise can be reconfigured to carry nuclear weapons. However, their participation in this exercise was for training only and only training armament was used.
(d) The employment of nuclear weapons was not a component of Exercise Trident Fury and as a training event, there was no reason for any vessel or aircraft to carry them, either live or simulated. Nonetheless, the United States security policy is that the American forces will neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at anytime and anywhere in the world. However, on September 27, 1991, President George H.W. Bush announced that the United States would eliminate all of its nuclear artillery shells and short-range nuclear ballistic missile warheads from surface ships, attack submarines and land-based naval aircraft and that they would not be carried in routine operations. Other, non-US participants of the exercise brought non-nuclear capable aircraft.
(e) Exercise Trident Fury 06 is the second annual Trident Fury exercise. Since this is a routine exercise, it was assessed that it posed no heightened risk of a terrorist attack.
(f) Yes, an extensive number of public and government briefings were held and the public affairs section of Maritime Forces Pacific initiated contact with all major and local news organizations to provide comprehensive and informative briefings. The objective of this plan was to raise public understanding of the requirement for conducting joint and combined exercises as they contribute to national security. The plan is based on proactive media and community relations. This was accomplished by providing media with as many opportunities as possible to witness operations first hand. Public viewing areas at the airport and flying schedules were disseminated to the public. An initial news release was published May 9, prior to the exercise and high profile or significant event news releases were issued throughout the exercise. Commander Canadian Fleet Pacific and staff made a presentation to North Saanich town council to explain the scope and importance of the exercise and speak to any potential concerns.
(g) All possible measures to mitigate the impact on the public and the environment have been carried out. The Trident Fury 06 exercise directive specifically promulgated extensive directions to all participating units regarding environmental concerns, including but not limited to the following:
--the protection of marine mammals and sea life;
--mitigation measures to be undertaken during surface to air firings and air to air firings;
--mitigation measures to be undertaken during simulated mine laying exercises;
--safe handling procedures for hydrocarbon products;
--the protection of vegetation, soils and wildlife; and,
--vehicle movement and water crossing procedures.
(h) Yes, Maritime Forces Pacific Formation Risk Management Office coordinated and conducted the necessary environmental assessments in respect of all live weapons firings and the basing and operation of participating air and ground units. The Department of National Defence carried out a series of due diligence environmental impact studies in accordance with international, federal, provincial and municipal environmental standards and regulations. Joint Task Force Pacific and the Maritime Forces Pacific are committed to both the letter and the spirit of environmental laws and regulations and are continually striving to anticipate and improve risk management practices, particularly as they relate to the preservation of the unique eco-systems and wide spectrum of marine mammals and animals that inhabit the region. The “Marine Mammal Mitigation” plan was extremely comprehensive and takes into account the wide, varied and sensitive ecosystems that make the area what it is.
(i) All possible measures to mitigate the impact on the public and the environment have been carried out. The Trident Fury 06 exercise directive specifically promulgated extensive directions to all participating units regarding environmental concerns. To this end the Department of National Defence has gone beyond the international, federal, provincial and municipal standard to ensure all aspects of our risk management processes were in place and were monitored. We believe that we have taken all reasonable steps to safeguard the environment and to ensure that our activities do not in any way compromise the environment. All foreign exercise participants were subject to the same strict rules and guidelines as Canadian participants. Since this was a routine exercise, it was assessed that it posed no heightened security risks. 
Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal:  How much money has been spent on the creation of the new Government of Canada Web site?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Canada site is the primary Internet site for Government of Canada information and online services, serving Canadians and people all over the world who are looking for information about Canada and from its government. The Canada site was originally launched in 1995 and is now managed by Service Canada.
The Canada site’s main page design has continually evolved in response to client feedback and key Government of Canada initiatives and is funded from a periodical funding source as part of Service Canada’s annual budget.
It is sound business practice to keep such a key communications tool fresh and appealing, to attract and retain a growing number of users. Focus testing was carried out to guide and refine the latest changes, as is normal practice. The feedback was used to finalize the changes and ensure that the Canada Site remains a comprehensive and trusted source of information for Canadians.
On April 5, 2006 the revised Canada site design included improved layout, providing more direct access to popular services, providing more visibility to current news and government priorities, and adding a trivia section. The redesign of the Canada site was done by the existing Service Canada staff who are responsible for maintaining and updating the site.
The work was completed within the on-going budgets for the Canada site operations. Incremental costs of $56,200 were incurred for the purchase of new images, focus testing and additional hours for staff and technical support. 
Mr. Andrew Scheer:  What are Transport Canada's annual maintenance costs for the hopper car fleet?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada does not incur any costs for the maintenance of the federal hopper car fleet. Under the terms of the operating agreement between Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway and Transport Canada, each railway is responsible, at its expense, for all repairs, maintenance and servicing of the cars apportioned to it
Mr. Charlie Angus:  With regard to the recent General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations in Geneva: (a) what bilateral, multilateral, and plurilateral proposals, requests and offers was Canada a signatory to; (b) what were the responses to and results of these proposals; (c) what proposals, requests and offers were made to Canada; (d) what were the responses to and results of these proposals; (e) what new agreements have been signed onto by Canada; (f) were changes made to Canada’s policy on the foreign ownership restrictions in telecommunications and audio-visual industries before the conference and, if so, what were they; (g) did consultations take place between the departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage with respect to these policies; (h) what provisional agreements or agreements in principle were signed by Canada; and (i) when is the next formal negotiation conference planned?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of International Trade, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: (a) Canada submitted 60 bilateral market access requests to other WTO members and is a co-sponsor of nine plurilateral requests, i.e. financial services; telecommunications services; computer and related services; environmental services; energy services; construction services; architectural, engineering and integrated engineering services; legal services; and maritime transport services. 
(b) To date, 74 WTO members have submitted initial offers and 32 have also submitted revised offers. The offers from those members to which Canada made requests respond to some of the requests made, but there are gaps. Bilateral negotiations are ongoing complemented by the plurilateral negotiations. The extent to which Canada’s requests will be met will not be known until the end of the negotiations.
(c) Canada received 42 bilateral requests from other WTO members and is a direct recipient of 10 plurilateral requests: agricultural services, air transport services, audiovisual services, services provided through commercial presence, cross-border supply of services, distribution services, logistics services, most-favoured nation exemptions, postal/courier services and temporary movement of natural persons.
(d) Subsequent to the exchange of initial requests WTO members submitted initial market access offers in March 2003, and revised offers in July 2005. Canada’s offers take into account the basic negotiating parameters and objectives that were outlined in our initial negotiating proposal, as well as the various bilateral requests received from other members. The negotiations are ongoing. These offers are conditional on the overall level of liberalization produced at the end of the negotiations.
(e) In the context of the GATS, Canada has not signed on to any new agreements. Final GATS offers are to be submitted in October 2006 and the Doha round is to be completed by the end of December 2006.
(f) Canada has not changed its position on telecommunications foreign investment restrictions. Canada is not offering to eliminate or reduce its current restrictions on telecommunications foreign ownership in the context of the current GATS negotiations. Neither our initial nor revised GATS offer included any liberalization with respect to telecommunications foreign investment. With respect to the audiovisual sector, Canada's position remains that we will not take commitments that would impede our flexibility to achieve cultural policy objectives. Canada is not offering to take on commitments in the audiovisual sector in the context of the current GATS negotiations.
(g) The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade works closely with both Industry Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage with respect to the development of Canada's position in international fora regarding the telecommunications and cultural sectors, including Canada's position in the WTO negotiations on the foreign investment restrictions for telecommunications and broadcasting services.
(h) In the context of the GATS, Canada has not signed on to any new agreements. Final GATS offers are to be submitted in October 2006 while completion of the Doha round of negotiations is scheduled to be completed by the end of December 2006.
(i) The next cluster of services negotiations is scheduled for the second week in July. In the context of the GATS, Canada has not signed on to any new agreements. Final GATS offers are to be submitted in October 2006 and the Doha round is to be completed by the end of December 2006. 
Starred QuestionsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 30. I ask that the question and answer to Question No. 30 be printed in Hansard as if read.
Ms. Penny Priddy: With respect to the government’s plan to compensate people who were infected with Hepatitis C tainted blood through Canada’s blood supply before 1986 and after 1990: (a) what is the timetable for compensating these victims; (b) what are the reasons why compensation for these victims was not announced between February 6 and May 8, 2006; (c) what barriers or challenges exist that might delay compensating these victims after May 8, 2006; and (d) what is the medical model intended for determining a victim’s eligibility for compensation?
Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: a) The Government of Canada intends to compensate those infected with hepatitis C through the Canadian blood system before 1986 and after 1990 as quickly as possible. Much work is underway on the steps needed to reach an agreement with the class. Given that this is a negotiation, no firm date can be provided as to when an agreement will be reached, but the Government of Canada is ensuring that all necessary steps in this process, that are within its control, are completed as quickly as possible.
b) Upon taking office, the Government of Canada immediately proceeded with its campaign commitment--work is ongoing. The most recent negotiating session was held on May 24-26, 2006. This is a complex issue with many stakeholders, and the Government of Canada is working diligently to provide compensation to the class as quickly as possible.
c) For the issues that it is able to influence, the Government of Canada is taking all possible steps to quickly reach an agreement with the class and provide compensation. The Government of Canada will proceed as quickly as possible but some factors are outside of the government’s control, for example, the process of obtaining court approvals of any proposed settlement agreement. After court approval, an administrative process to evaluate and pay compensation must be established.
d) As per the memorandum of understanding signed by both sides in November 2005, determining the eligibility criteria for compensation is part of the process of settling with the class. Compensation programs established to date, the 1986-1990 agreement, the Red Cross settlement, and provincial compensation programs, have used an application and evaluation process to determine eligibility. Eligibility criteria, and a process to evaluate eligibility and compensate class members will be established in a final settlement.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 22 and 23 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Hon. Joe Fontana: What projects has the government undertaken, or does it plan to undertake, in the fields of science and research from 2002-2003 to the forecasted fiscal year of 2007-2008, and, in each case and for each ministry or department involved: (a) how much was disbursed; (b) were the projects partnered with (i) private firms, (ii) public firms, (iii) academic institutions; (c) what was the specific purpose of the disbursement; and (d) what is the projected duration of the project, and, if the program has been discontinued, cancelled, suspended or not renewed since February 1, 2006, what is the reason for the action taken?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Hon. Robert Thibault:  With respect to the arbitrator’s report on the dispute between Transport Canada and the Maritime Harbour Society over the Port of Digby: (a) what action does the government intend to take in response to the arbitrator’s report; (b) how will the government assure that the interests of the people of Digby are respected, promoted and protected; (c) will this facility be acquired by the government, entrusted to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and managed by a local harbour authority?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Public Health Agency of Canada Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, An Act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain Acts, be read the third time and passed. 
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, on behalf of New Democratic Party, to join in the debate at third reading of Bill C-5, an act respecting the establishment of the Public Health Agency of Canada and amending certain acts.
I and the people of my riding are proud to have the federal virology laboratory located in the riding. We have taken a great personal and professional interest in following the evolution of the realization that our public health initiatives are equally important and perhaps even of more importance than our health care system generally in that our health care system dedicates so much of our resources and energies to fixing people after they are broken. The public health regime is dedicated to elevating the standards of our general health and, hopefully, preventing people from getting sick.
I think all the authorities in the field of delivering health care have come to the realization that it is all about finding better ways to create a healthier population. We support Bill C-5 and this initiative because it would take us one step further in prioritizing the public health of Canadians at least equally with the priority of helping Canadians once they have been stricken with an illness and helping them to cope with it.
In giving thought to the issue of greater public health, this debate gives us the opportunity to review some of the accessible things without a great deal of expense and resources spent that would have a direct impact on public health. 
I note that the creation of the new Public Health Agency of Canada would also create the chief public health officer whose mandate surely would be one of education, to help Canadians understand and realize what steps they can take to create a healthier population and enjoy a better quality of life. As a secondary benefit, it would take enormous pressure off our overtaxed public health care system.
A couple of obvious things come to mind, which I sincerely hope the newly appointed chief public health officer would be seized of. One is the fact, and I say this with some shame, that Canada is still one of the world's leading producers and exporters of asbestos. It is hard to imagine in this day and age of scientific awareness of the health hazards of asbestos, but we continue to produce and export it at an alarming rate of 240,000 tonnes per year. We know that one fibre can and has caused devastating health conditions for those who, after a terribly cruel and long incubation period, are struck down with mesothelioma, the cancer caused by asbestos.
We should encourage our newly created public health officer to address the asbestos issue because there is no business case to continue supporting the asbestos industry the way we do. We are one of the world's largest producers and exporters of asbestos while the rest of the world is banning it. The entire European Union has banned asbestos, as has France. 
In fact, Canada went to the WTO to stop the banning of asbestos, if anyone can believe that, which is why I said that I had introduced this issue with some trepidation and some shame. Canada tried to intervene to stop the good people of France from banning asbestos by claiming that it would be a trade barrier. We would not be able to sell our Canadian asbestos to France anymore. Fortunately, Canada lost and France won at the WTO and France continued in its logical step of trying to get this poison away from its citizens.
France is now calling for a global ban on asbestos. It is rare for a nation state to appeal to other nation states in this era of delicate diplomatic relationships but France is calling, very overtly, for a ban on asbestos globally. I hope Canada heeds the message and takes note of that.
Last week the ILO, the International Labour Organization, passed a resolution calling for a ban on all forms of asbestos. The world should no longer be exposed to asbestos and yet we continue to dump corporate welfare into the crippling asbestos industry in the province of Quebec.
I know the hazards of asbestos because I used to work in the asbestos mines. I have friends who have died and friends who are dying of asbestos related diseases. I know how we were lied to about asbestos and how that industry continues to lie to Canadians and to the world about the effects of asbestos. It is not overstating things to say that the asbestos industry is the tobacco industry's evil twin in the damage it causes to the general public health in Canada where the countryside is littered with asbestos, even in the buildings that we work in on Parliament Hill and around the world. 
The only place Canada can find a market for its asbestos is in the third world, developing nations, that rarely have health and safety measures at all, much less ones that are enforced. We do not see HEPA filters on a day labourer in Pakistan who is shovelling Canadian asbestos from a wheelbarrow into a pile of cement to make asbestos cement tiles. I have seen the pictures. The labourers are barefoot, bare chested and have no health protection whatsoever. It is happening as we speak with Canadian asbestos.
I hope our new chief public health officer listens to the world and ignores the asbestos industry, stops giving corporate welfare to these guys and stops using our Canadian embassies to promote asbestos. One hundred and twenty conferences in 60 different countries were paid for by the Asbestos Institute, which is funded by the federal government, to promote Canadian asbestos. At the most recent one in Jakarta in May, the Canadian embassy was used to host this asbestos promotion event which was paid for by the Government of Canada. I think it is appalling.
The second issue I would like to touch on in terms of public health is in the context of the new Public Health Agency of Canada and the role of the chief public health officer. I hope the new chief public health officer will take note of the fact that over 90 Canadian municipalities have banned the cosmetic non-essential use of pesticides in their municipalities. I hope he takes note of the courage and tenacity that it takes on the part of often volunteer reeves and councillors of small municipalities and cities who only work part time in many cases. 
 Those individuals have to stand up to the massive chemical lobbyists who pounce on communities. As soon as they indicate that they are interested in banning the non-essential cosmetic use of pesticides, they get inundated with the lawyers, the lobbyists and the threatened lawsuits that the cosmetic use of pesticides cannot be banned because it is an unfair trade restriction and they have no jurisdiction. They bog them up in the courts for years trying to stop them from doing what common sense dictates they do.
That is the situation that over 90 municipalities in Canada have had to struggle through. The City of Ottawa failed by one vote after two years of trying. I hope our new national chief public health officer can recognize the problems the municipalities must struggle with and encourage the government to do nationally what municipalities are forced to do municipally.
Parliament had an opportunity to pass an NDP opposition day motion to ban the cosmetic non-essential use of pesticides and to lend support to those courageous municipalities. I should point out that Hudson, Quebec was the first municipality in Canada that managed to do this. It was in response partly to two young men in the area of Hudson, Quebec who lived in the vicinity of five golf courses that were regularly sprayed with these chemical pesticides. The cluster of chemical and environmentally related cancers in that area was astounding.
Those two young men both contracted brain cancer in their early teens. They made a pact with each other that if either of them survived the other would go on to be a champion of having these pesticides banned. One died and the other went on to be a champion. I have heard him speak and I wish everyone in the House of Commons could hear him speak.
Those communities, one by one, were banning cosmetic pesticides until the entire province of Quebec did so, to its great credit. The province took it out of the hands of those struggling municipalities. It said that it would stand up to the big chemical companies, that it would fight the court cases on behalf of the municipalities and that it would do away with the hundreds of thousands of kilos per year of usage of non-essential cosmetic pesticides.
True public health is when we take steps to try to improve the general health of our population. It does not make sense to wait until more and more people contract environmentally triggered cancers and then scramble for the money to find better treatments for those people. I do not think we will ever keep up. 
My home province of Manitoba now spends 42% of its provincial budget on health care, and it is not enough. We still have waiting lists. We still do not have enough CAT scans. I do not think it will ever be enough until we turn off the tap at the front end and have less people coming into the system with catastrophic diseases, these appalling cancers.
There is a terrible statistic of which we should all be cognizant and of which we should all take note as members of Parliament. My children are in their twenties. Of their generation, 50% of them will die of cancer. People say that it is because they are living longer. That is not true. It is because they are being exposed to a chemical soup that is unprecedented in the history of mankind. It is only in the post-war years that the petrochemical industry has exploded and the exposure to new chemical compounds has exploded as well.
The burden of proof to prove that they are dangerous is on us, and that is the problem. We tried to put forward a motion in the House of Commons that would put the burden of proof on the manufacturers. They would have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a product would not harm us before the product could be sold. Instead, it is innocent until proven guilty for chemicals.
Manufacturers are allowed to put chemicals on the market with very little oversight, other than their own testing, which has self-interest to it. Then, after 20 or 30 years of usage, if we can prove there is enough people affected with cancer from their product, maybe then we can start to fight to get it taken off the market. We want the onus to be reversed. I hope we have an ally in our new Chief Public Health Officer, through the Public Health Agency of Canada. We will be appealing that to the person who takes the job. We will be asking for help to keep Canadians safe from this rampant exposure to the chemical soup.
I will not dwell on this much longer because I know I have to speak directly to the bill. However, there is a compounding effect of which none of us are aware. Even if we accept the chemical companies at their word, that compound A, in and of itself, is not harmful to us, there is another chemical company selling compound B to us. When compound A and compound B join forces in our kidneys, our livers and other organs, they create compound C, which kills us.
That is what we are faced with this and that makes it difficult for us to prove any one chemical causes this reaction. Our bodies are saturated with a chemical soup of 20 different compounds. We need to minimize the exposure, especially among infants and pregnant women, and we do that by proactively reversing the onus. The burden of proof has to be on the manufacturer.
 I welcome the creation of the new Chief Public Health Officer because it gives us somebody to whom I can appeal. Parliament rejected our idea out of hand. It is let the free market prevail, people will not buy the product if it is killing them. If it kills them, then they will not be buy it so the company will go out of business. That is not good enough for leadership in terms of our public health.
The last thing, in the context of public health and achievable doables, to which this Parliament could attend itself, is the issue of trans fats. Many of us who were here in the last Parliament know NDP put forward an opposition motion on my private member's bill to eliminate trans fats, to take them right out of our system.
The Liberal government put in place measures to require mandatory labelling of trans fats. In other words, the Liberal Department of Health acknowledged that it was desirable to get trans fats out of our system or to at least eliminate Canadians' exposure to trans fats. Its proposed methodology, though, was to require labelling.
We are grateful the government at least acknowledged the issue, but it is not okay to put poison in our food just because it is properly labelled. I will not accept that. Labelling is inadequate. A hungry teenager, standing in line at a fast food restaurant, will not spend a lot of time to compare the technical Latin terms of one chemical versus another in the concentration of that component of the french fries he or she buys. They are hungry and they will eat them. As a result, these deadly manufactured trans fats have poisoned a generation.
There is a class issue involved with this too. It takes a fair amount of economic security to eat well in Canada, to buy healthy fresh foods and to keep cupboards and fridges stocked with good food. Low income people, with less organized lives due to the pressures they face, are more likely to eat fast food. Canadians eat an average of 10 grams of trans fats a day. Teenagers eat as much as 35 grams of trans fats per day. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, one gram per day increases the risk of heart disease by 20%. 
Scientists, who address research on trans fat, use the term “toxic”. It meets the literal definition of a toxin, yet it is common throughout all our processed foods. Western prairie farmers would thank us if we eliminated these partially hydrogenated oils. Certain strains of canola oil are the best alternative to trans fats in terms of shelf life and to maintain quality and taste without changing the product directly. If we were to ban trans fats, it would create an enormous burgeoning industry. Our three Canadian prairie provinces are the best places in the world to produce these strains of canola oil. We could provide the world with a safe oil so french fries could still enjoyed by our children, but would not kill them.
Even though I am pleased that we are seized of the issue of improving public health, it frustrates me that three achievable things are in front of us today, but we are not acting on them. 
We should ban asbestos. We should stop mining and exporting asbestos to the Third World. Canada is viewed as being an international piranha. If we think we have a bad reputation for the seal hunt, ask other countries what they think about Canada dumping asbestos into the Third World. It is shameful that the federal government continues to undermine this dying and deadly industry. The asbestos mine I worked in closed. It died a natural death due to market forces. I do not care if the remaining asbestos mines are in Quebec, but they should be shut down and allowed to die a natural death too. By staying open, they are killing a lot of people.
We do not need to read Silent Spring again to know that chemical pesticides have a dilatory affect on our organs and our quality of life. 
We need to ban trans fats. For Heaven's sakes, what is the holdup? Members do not have to listen to me, but they should listen to the Heart and Stroke Foundation. They should listen to Dr. Wilbert Keon and Senator Yves Morin, a Liberal senator and a Conservative senator, who worked with me on the trans fat initiative. These gentlemen are heart surgeons; I am just a carpenter.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  You work with the Conservatives too much.
Pat Martin:  Nobody has a monopoly on good ideas and some of those Conservatives actually know what they are talking about. Yet Parliament did not take any action, even though some of the world's leading authorities on cardiac health insisted that we do so. Denmark banned trans fats and we should ban trans fats. 
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, I listened, with great interest, to the speech of the member for Winnipeg Centre. He obviously brings a lot of passion to this issue. 
While he spoke a lot about the Public Health Agency, which is important for the future of the country, and he spoke a lot about trans fats, most notable is the fact that he did not speak about the federal accountability act.
 I would be remiss if I did not stand in my place and acknowledge the terrific amount of work that member has done to ensure we deliver accountability to the federal government. He should be congratulated for his hard work and for standing up for principle. 
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, for recognizing the joint contribution that was made to move the federal accountability act through its stages in the committee. It was shepherded masterfully through the committee stage by committed people, by those who stand up for openness and transparency. They had to go to the wall, because openness and transparency has its enemies.
In the past I have quoted a British TV show Yes, Minister in which Sir Humphrey is talking to the prime minister. He says, “You can have open government or you can have good government, but Mr. Prime Minister, you cannot have both”.
This is a shocking signal. There are opponents to the idea of open government. It takes political courage to champion the concept and to stand by it, to bring it to fruition and to make manifest these lofty principles, which were only clichés under the last government, of transparency and accountability. To make that manifest will be to the betterment of all of us.
Under the new access to information provisions, which we forced through on Bill C-2, anyone who wants to know about the inner workings of the public health agency, the financing, funding and administration, would be able to file an access to information request. Prior to to those motions being passed in committee, that would have been excluded. This new agency would have been operating in the dark because it would not have fit in the definition of government institution.
We have made great progress for Canadians. I hope Canadians realize that we are at the end of an era and at the start of a new era, I would hope, in terms of accountability and transparency.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, it is always appropriate to make some linkages, but it was stretch to talk about the accountability act and this agency. However, members make choices.
The member went further than the bill. He said the agency was fine. We know the agency was there in September 2004. We know that Dr. David Butler-Jones already had been appointed by order in council. The bill, of the last Parliament, substantively gives it parliamentary recognition. 
The important part is with regard to the mandate and the raison d'être. Concerns have been raised about pandemic issues, chronic disease, breast cancer and the kinds of things that are big hits to Canadians in risks to health. The other issue I heard in committee, in looking at the testimony and listening to some of the debate, was the logistics of establishing the agency in a way which might lead to greater bureaucracy, or some empire building and possibly some lack of integration of the programs throughout Health Canada. 
Everything is still operating under the umbrella of Health Canada. However, as we create and formalize the agency, notwithstanding it still will report through the minister to the House, it will have its own life in these matters. Therefore, it is important to not only establish the agency with an appropriate mandate, but also to ensure, operationally, that the agency will be effective in its job. 
I could only think that may be the linkage between the agency and the federal accountability act. With all the best interests at heart, legislation will not guarantee that an agency operates properly. This is the area in which we should be vigilant, and I think the member would agree.
[Interjection]
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, as is often the case, the member for Mississauga South has a valid point. 
I appreciate that he reminded me to pay tribute to Dr. David Butler-Jones. As my colleague from Mississauga knows, the federal microbiology lab where Dr. Frank Plummer and Dr. Butler-Jones work is located within my riding. We are very proud to have that lab in my riding and play that role in the network of public health agencies across the country.
The member raised some valid concerns regarding the act. I do not know why the power to enforce the Quarantine Act remains with the Minister of Health when there is a new Chief Public Health Officer. Surely that officer is more specialized and capable. There is more professional competency, with no disrespect to the Minister of Health, within the Public Health Agency than there is in the Minister of Health's office.
I do not understand why the Public Health Agency is not given the authority to act cross-boundary. If a crisis transcends a provincial-territorial border, what disease recognizes provincial and territorial borders? What outbreak or crisis that the Chief Public Health Officer has to deal with is going to stop at the border? I do not understand some of those aspects of the bill.
Even though the new Public Health Agency has been seized with being ready for things such as West Nile virus, another SARS outbreak, or Asian flu, I want the new agency to be seized with some of the ongoing public health concerns that I identified, such as asbestos, the cosmetic non-essential use of pesticides, and the pervasive use of trans fats in processed food. These are things the agency could do on an ongoing basis through education, through educating lawmakers like us, through advocacy, things that are not crisis oriented but are general public health oriented. 
That is the way we will elevate slowly the standard of general health in our country. We do not just need better ways to fight and combat disease. We need prevention. I hope that with the emphasis on energy and resources, we will be prioritizing prevention at least as much as cure.
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected in 1993 and when the 35th Parliament opened in January 1994, one of the issues was our health care system. It continues to be the top priority of Canadians today. At the time there was a commitment of the party that formed the government to establish a national forum on health, because there was this looming concern about whether or not our health care system was prepared to meet the challenges that we were facing. Some of the signals were already showing.
I had served for about nine years on the hospital board in Mississauga, so I was quite interested in the health files. After nine years on the board I had learned a little about our health system, how complicated it is and how extremely important it is to deal with prioritization. Therefore, when I came to Parliament, I asked to be on the health committee.
I raise this because the first meeting I ever attended as a parliamentarian was a meeting of the health committee. The officials gave us a presentation on the state of the health care system in Canada. What I will never forget, and it still continues to be reflected in what we are talking about in Bill C-5, is they said that 75% of what we spend in the health care system is for the remediation of problems and only 25% is for prevention. Their conclusion was that that model was unsustainable. They were right.
Even back in 1993 there were the same concerns about whether or not we had the right balance between prevention and dealing with problems after they had occurred. That is why since 1993 there have been significant programs with regard to the responsible use of alcohol, smoking cessation, and the like. These are directly related to a conscious decision by Health Canada to get the balance a little better and shift from dealing with problems after they have occurred to prevention.
As we go through all of this, it is extremely important that we do not abandon those who are ill. At the same time, while stabilizing the problems that are there already, as economic circumstances will permit, we still have to make those investments.
The genesis of this bill goes back to even before I became a member of Parliament. Sometimes things in this place take a long time to ultimately happen. There are linkages. Everything has a history. There certainly is a history here and rather than repeat a lot of the information that was given by members already, I wanted to add a little perspective. I wanted to provide some information to members and to Canadians about one of the principal areas of the mandate of this new agency, which actually started to operate in September 2004. This bill will give some parliamentary foundation to it. Its mandate is to strengthen Canada's public health and emergency response capacity. 
Many members have talked about the SARS outbreak in 2003. In some areas of our country that was a very difficult time. Particularly in Scarborough, Ontario, there was some localization. In the Chinese community, the restaurants and some of the seniors' centres, all of a sudden there were problems. We could see that it was there. We received a failing grade on the report card on how we responded to that crisis. People were not sure what they were dealing with, how to deal with it, how to protect the health of Canadians. 
Since that time, more and more people are becoming better informed about things like bird flu and pandemics. They are still a bit unsure about what these things are. Part of the principal mandate of the agency headed up by Dr. David Butler-Jones is to deal with preparedness for the big hit, for those things that really could impact.
I am told that if a pandemic of a certain viral strain or flu strain were to hit, in theory it could spread throughout the world in a matter of weeks. Those who have health difficulties may be the most vulnerable. 
What do we do about all the caregivers, the doctors, nurses, paramedics and first responders who are exposed to all these things? What happens when they get sick and suddenly there is nobody to help? This could be very devastating. It has been a long time since Canada has had a pandemic.
I thought I would share with the House something which I wrote about a month ago on what is a pandemic. I received feedback from some constituents who thought it was helpful. 
I wrote that there are three types of influenza currently in the news, the human influenza, the avian influenza and the pandemic influenza. Now all of a sudden, there is something new here.
Human influenza, the flu as we would typically know it, is a respiratory infection caused by an influenza virus. We are familiar with that. The strains circulate every year and make people sick. Most people will recover from the influenza within a week or 10 days. However, people generally over the age of 65 and children with chronic conditions, and chronic conditions are an important element, or weaknesses and deficiencies in the immune system, such as diabetes or cancer, are at greater risk of serious complications from some other diseases like influenza or flu. Pneumonia would probably be the most prevalent. Between 4,000 and 8,000 Canadians die annually of influenza. It is not an insignificant number, 4,000 to 8,000 Canadians, and we somehow take the flu for granted.
There is also the avian influenza. The media refers to it as the bird flu because birds seem to be the most prevalent transmitters of this strain of influenza. Birds and other animals, including pigs which are also very prevalent carriers of these viruses, also contact and transmit influenza. Wild birds in particular are natural carriers. They have carried animal influenza viruses with no apparent harm for centuries. 
This is not something that was just created because of something else that we have done. This has been with us for a long time and is rearing its ugly head. How many times have we heard about medical problems which have been latent for many years and suddenly they crop up again? HIV-AIDS is another similar example of where people may have the virus but will not have full-blown AIDS for 10 years or even longer. There are latent problems.
Wildlife have carried animal influenza viruses with no apparent harm to themselves. Migratory fowl, ducks and geese carry viruses known as the H5 or H7 strain or some other subtypes. Currently there is an avian influenza called H5N1. We hear about H5N1 a lot. I wish it would be given a name that people could remember. That virus is circulating in southeast Asia and parts of Europe and is infecting many poultry populations and some humans. 
We now have evidence that there is transmission to humans. This strain is highly pathogenic or highly deadly to birds and has infected a limited number of people, but still, it has infected people. There is no evidence that this virus has been transmitted from person to person. That would be the big step. Going from a bird to a human, yes, there has been some limited transmission, but when human to human transmission happens, it will be a whole different kettle of fish.
Why is it of concern? People are exposed to several different strains of influenza many times during their lives. Even though the virus changes, their previous bouts of influenza may offer some protection through the development of their own immune systems. However, three or four times each century, for some unknown reason and it was a surprise to me, a radical change takes place in the influenza A virus causing a new strain to emerge to which nobody will have immunity. It will be new. It will have morphed itself into something brand new.
One way that this radical change could happen is that a person sick with a human influenza virus also becomes infected with the avian influenza virus and the two viruses mix. This means that the avian influenza virus acquires some of the human influenza genes, potentially creating a new type of influenza. Now it is getting complicated. It is just like the human population. As families marry, it kind of spreads itself out. We are sharing and creating all kinds of uniqueness in terms of the degree of immunities that we have built up in our gene system and our gene pool. 
There is no pandemic influenza in the world right now. That is good news. However, there were three influenza pandemics in the last century and scientists are preparing for another influenza pandemic. That is part of the responsibility of this agency.
We know it is coming. This agency has an enormous responsibility to ensure that we are absolutely prepared, as prepared as we possibly can be.
 I did however learn a couple of other facts that I was not aware of that Canadians should also know. The Canadian pandemic influenza plan was released in 2004. It outlines the actions to be taken at various levels of government so that we have a coordinated response. This is a good thing.
The Public Health Agency of Canada continually monitors the influenza viruses. Obviously, we want to ensure that we are players in this game. We will adapt and revise that plan as more information becomes available and as the knowledge of pandemic preparedness globally becomes greater in terms of the risks associated with it.
There are vaccines and antivirals which are two components of our approach. There are two ways to deal with this. A pandemic vaccine cannot be developed until a new virus emerges. That means we have to wait until it happens before we can actually develop the medicine that is going to be necessary to treat it.
People have asked me if they should be stockpiling some of this stuff that they can get at the drugstore and they can get from their doctor who will give them a prescription. That is fine for a particular strain of a virus, but it is not going to do very much unless it is the same strain that actually becomes the pandemic virus. After the strain has emerged and has been identified, it actually is going to take about six months before the influenza vaccine can be developed.
We can imagine that in the six month period in the middle of a pandemic there are going to be some serious problems. In fact, we could not possibly develop enough of that vaccine to treat all Canadians at the same time, which means that all of a sudden some choices have to be made.
I mentioned earlier the caregivers, nurses, doctors, first responders and paramedics. These people need to be treated first because if we do not have them, we do not have the linkage to the medicines that we need. Therefore, the vaccine would not be available at the start of the pandemic and may be in short supply for some time. All of a sudden we begin to appreciate that this is a complicated issue. If this is all the agency has to do, it would be worth doing.
Canada has a contract with domestic suppliers to develop these vaccines at that point in time. Until that is available there are antivirals which will be an important part of the response. An antiviral is a medicine that destroys a virus or interferes with its ability to grow, but it is not a cure. Antivirals do not provide immunity. Antivirals are used for prevention, but the dose is much higher and has to be taken for as long as people are exposed to the virus. It is an interim measure. It is the best we could do without having the vaccine itself.
The combined federal, provincial and territorial governments currently own about 35 million capsules of an antiviral with 5 million additional capsules on order. The antivirals however are limited in their effectiveness and are therefore only part of the overall strategy.
People ask if we are ready for the pandemic. I suppose, in terms of the pills that we can take to ensure that, should it break, we will have something that will either prevent us from getting the virus, or if we have it, the pills will ensure that we do not have serious complications and maybe even die. All of a sudden, when we start talking in this context, we are talking about a major catastrophe. We are talking about a lot of people who will be impacted.
The final thing is, what can Canadians do themselves? At this time, if people are travelling to a foreign destination, they should check Health Canada's website and find out the risk elements and risk conditions that may exist there and what happens should they get sick abroad, et cetera. From country to country, particularly in some undeveloped countries, there are some risks.
Prevention is obviously the best defence. Besides getting an annual flu vaccine, personal basic hygiene will help to ward off sickness. We know that. I would refer members to the Health Canada website simply to get a little information about preparedness in terms of a pandemic possibility. It is really important.
Since the agency was established in September 2004 and the Chief Public Health Officer was appointed by order in council in September 2004, the bill is simply giving it a parliamentary foundation, which will allow it to continue. I do not think we will see any changes, other than it will have the ability to issue a report on its own through the Minister of Health. It still reports. It is actually a former department of the Ministry of Health that will now be an agency within Health Canada.
It is important to understand that there is a designated mandate. As I indicated, the first part of the mandate was to strengthen Canada's public health system and emergency response capacity; second, to develop national strategies for managing infectious diseases and chronic diseases; and third, to develop an integrated pan-Canadian public health plan that address chronic diseases, including cancer and heart disease.
In the brief time that I have remaining, I want to mention something else that did come up in some of my work as a member of that health committee and as a parliamentarian since.
 One of the private member's bills that I introduced about five years ago called on the Government of Canada to establish the position of physician general of Canada. It was intended to be modelled somewhat after the surgeon general of the United States. 
Canadians need some information about personal health. Seniors want to know about seniors issues and seniors illnesses. Youth may have questions about a disease or whatever. Women need information on things like hormones and have questions on whether or not breast self-examination is still useful. People have questions about health. I found it extremely difficult to get information out of Health Canada's website or through making direct enquiries to the Health Canada office.
However, if we were ever to visit the surgeon general's website in the United States, we would see that there is a portal or a link to cancer, if we want information on it . Whether a person is a youth, a senior, or a pregnant woman, if they are suffering from depression or there is a mental health issue, the website is set up so nicely to communicate with people. Too often governments do not have communications formats which are informative to people who just want some basic reassurance.
When there are emerging issues, such as something that has been with us for a long time like fetal alcohol spectrum of disorders, or FAS, should not someone be there pronouncing on the risk associated with doing this or not doing that, someone who has some credibility from within the health profession to assist Canadians with their health needs?
It would be complementary to what the health agency is doing. I hope we can find that portal for all of the other things that we have to care for in the best interests of the health of Canadians.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I had the opportunity to sit with him on the health committee for a few years. I know that these issues have concerned him for a long time. I remember that when we were both on the committee, we studied the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome. He also took part in the study of the federal tobacco control strategy. We also examined together in committee the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and we recently studied the issue of the Public Health Agency of Canada.
For those who are watching us, I will say that this initiative was launched under the Liberals and the Conservatives decided to maintain it. It is a bit surprising that we are studying such a bill today. 
Health and public health, terms that we see in the title of the bill, are clearly not under federal jurisdiction.
I remind the House that we have modernized the Quarantine Act. The Bloc Québécois, in its usual positive spirit, which all hon. members in this place can confirm, worked extremely hard. In fact, we agreed that quarantine did indeed come under federal jurisdiction.
Does my colleague believe that the creation of the Public Health Agency of Canada constitute an encroachment on a provincial jurisdiction?
Would he not agree that federal epidemiological objectives as a whole could very well be reached under the Quarantine Act which is clearly under federal jurisdiction?
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I have worked with this member often. We worked on the AIDS file at the subcommittee on HIV-AIDS which he may recall, and a few others. 
The synergy and the dialogue that has gone on within the health committee over all those years that we were involved together, such as the plain packaging for tobacco, is probably, in a microcosm, a reflection of the importance of us working together: the Bloc, the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals. 
We achieve more as a group than we would ever achieve if we all went away and did our own thing. I would suggest to the member that quite possibly that is a good model also for Canada, that we work together.
Let me leave the member with what I honestly believe to be an important foundation value that I have. The measure of success of a country is not an economic measure. It is in fact the measure of the health and the well-being of its people. As a parliamentarian I have always tried to move toward those things which would in fact enhance the health and the well-being of the people, with full cognizance that some are better off and better able to care for themselves.
 I would say that in regard to his question about dealing with this agency, Quebec can do certain things with the Quarantine Act, et cetera, but there are no boundaries to disease. It is very quick and we have a linked approach, not only to the provinces and the territories but internationally, to collaborate internationally, to make absolutely sure that we are part of the leading edge to address matters such as pandemics. 
This is not a responsibility that each province should take individually. As the member well knows, in Canada some regions are not as well off as others and cannot do as much, or as comprehensively, or as good a job, or attract the kind of people they need. In fact, in some cases there may only be one or two individuals available in all of Canada who may be the people we need to lead in terms of pandemic preparedness, and I think Dr. Butler-Jones is one of them.
Therefore, how can we say that if a province can get somebody good enough, it will be taken care of, but if it cannot, that is its problem because we have ours? That is not the approach I take. As long as Canada is made up of 10 provinces and 3 territories, we are going to work on behalf of all Canadians, and in my Canada, that certainly includes my Quebec.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, seeing as the new public health officer was created under the Liberal government, perhaps my colleague from Mississauga South could tell us why the mandate of the new public health officer had what I would see as built in weaknesses, built in limitations such as that in the event of the Quarantine Act being implemented, which I would think would be at the very point we would want the public health officer to be in direction and control, the authority reverts back to the Minister of Health. I do not understand that. 
 I do not know if my colleague will be able to answer my next question because he cannot speak on behalf of the former government, but he has been a longstanding member of Parliament and was on the government side for many years. What was the attachment that the previous Liberal government had, and apparently the new Conservative government has, to the asbestos mines? Why this irrational commitment to an industry that is dying, an industry that is killing people and an industry that will collapse without the corporate welfare that successive governments continually shove at it?
The member's government was fairly right wing in its economic policies and the former prime minister, when he was minister of finance, was the most right wing finance minister in the history of Canada. Why did he support corporate welfare for asbestos mines that should have been left to die by market forces? Why this artificial life support to a deadly material that should be eradicated from the face of the earth?
[Interjection]
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I took the time to get the transcripts of the committee meeting where the health minister spoke to Bill C-5 and to the issue raised by the member. With regard to the mandate issues, they may not have been structured or represented in the most efficient and most effective way with regard to things like the Quarantine Act.
I consider this to be an operational matter. The most important part, obviously, was with regard to the principal mandate issues being pandemic preparedness, emergency preparedness and chronic diseases, which the member's colleagues have spoken about quite well.
The question with regard to asbestos was interesting. I could go with a political attack but maybe I will go with the policy side and take the high road. The justice building, which was converted for MP offices, has asbestos in the walls. However it is the asbestos that is packaged in sealed packages and it is in a format that does not create the same problem that free, loose asbestos in the ceilings is causing in the West Block.
I could give the member a case of where this is a big problem and we need to get rid of it, but what about proper applications of certain chemicals or resources. I am not an expert on asbestos but I do know that within the last five years on Parliament Hill we have had both. If the member wants us to ban the production and use of asbestos in all its forms and that we should do whatever it takes because it is not good, he should spearhead that important initiative because I think he would get a lot of support. However, in the meantime--
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hochelaga.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on a warm and sunny Friday afternoon. I am sure that none of us would rather be anywhere else but here and that we feel most privileged to discuss this bill. I thank the whip's office for giving me the opportunity to do so.
That said, it is with great concern and surprise that we find the Conservative government is carrying on the Liberal-trademarked tradition of interfering with and disregarding provincial areas of jurisdiction. We are well aware that when it comes to centralization and constitutional arrogance, there is unfortunately a rather synonymous relationship between the former Liberal government and the concept of disregarding areas of jurisdiction.
This is even a paradox within the Department of Health. As we know, Monique Bégin was Minister of Health and Welfare at the time under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was not himself particularly sympathetic to decentralization. It was she who introduced in this House a Canada health act that included a number of principles, such as universality, comprehensiveness, portability and, of course, public health. 
When Monique Bégin introduced the Canada Health Act in 1983 or 1984, even doctors agreed that it seemed to thoroughly disregard provincial jurisdiction. I was rereading some documents at the time of the Romanow report, which I will come back to shortly. When Monique Bégin tabled the Canada Health Act, Ontario doctors went on strike to protest it. Typically, Ontario has not been fertile ground for socialism, revolution and overthrowing the established order. 
All of this shows how difficult it is to understand how the federal government sees its responsibilities in the area of health. I was discussing this with my colleague from Laval, and I find it even more paradoxical and quite incredible to see that while the federal government fails to do what is expected of it, it goes barging in where it should be exercising considerable restraint.
Constitutionally, of course, the federal government has responsibilities, including one on epidemics. When the previous health minister introduced the quarantine bill—that work had begun with Pierre Pettigrew and continued with his successor in that department—the Bloc Québécois worked very seriously in committee. Indeed, we agree that it is the federal government's prerogative to determine certain situations where the risk of contagion or epidemics is such that quarantine zones must be established. Of course, the bill was not perfect. We would have liked it to provide for advance notice and compensation mechanisms when people are deprived from their right to go to work. Nevertheless, essentially, we did not challenge the fact that the federal government was solidly rooted in its jurisdiction. 
With regard to the patent issue, the whole issue of intellectual property is an extremely important consideration. In fact, this began with the Conservatives. We will remember that, in the 1960s, there was a royalty system. Licences and patents were protected. However, it was possible for companies to copy patents on payment of a rebate. They would pay a certain percentage on what was called royalties. 
We realized that this system was not beneficial to Canada—and I will get back to the special character of Montreal, that beautiful city, Greater Montreal, where 50% of the population is living, where we can see a different movie every day, where cultural opportunities are extraordinary.
It has the Olympic Stadium, the Planetarium, the Botanical Garden—
Nicole Demers:  The Outgames.
Réal Ménard:  It has public transit and the Outgames, as the hon. member for Laval so rightly informed us.
It became apparent in Canada that the royalties system was not conducive to establishing a domestic research industry for bio-pharmaceuticals. At the time, this was a demand by the brand name drug industry, the one doing the research, which was mainly located in Montreal. The generic drug industry was copying in a way and not doing a whole lot of original research. These days I know that has changed somewhat.
I was the health critic. This was a good time in my life. It was stimulating and I had the pleasure of working on the same committee as the hon. member for Laval. We got up in the morning and saw each other in committee. Those were wonderful years in our lives—a great time in my life. All that to say that the brand name drug industry was originally located in Montreal and was calling for a properly protected public patent system. 
The President of the Treasury Board was still just a baby then, but he will certainly remember that the Mulroney Conservatives had introduced Bill C-91, which was warmly received throughout Canada and Quebec and which, at the time, gave patent protection for 17 years. International rules have changed. This has increased to 20 years.
All that to say that when it comes to patents, epidemics or research, we understand that the federal government wants to intervene because this is their responsibility. However, when the federal government takes steps to intervene in matters of public health, there is a slight problem, a failure to respect jurisdictions. This is going too far and we would have liked members of the Conservative caucus from Quebec to rein in the government by telling it there are no prerogatives more sacred than health and education.
Just remember Maurice Lenoblet Duplessis, the illustrious member for Trois-Rivières. It is a tradition in Trois-Rivières to elect illustrious, talented members and I am here to say that this tradition continues. Maurice Lenoblet Duplessis set up the Tremblay Commission, which called for full respect of the jurisdictions of health and education.
Why did the federal government table a bill to create the Public Health Agency of Canada? I would like to point out that, for the past two budgets at least, there has been a considerable allocation of resources. I saw that the Public Health Agency of Canada was given $665 million in the 2004 budget and that its resources have been growing.
This is extremely troubling because, clearly, the Public Health Agency of Canada will want to do some nation building in the area of health care, as we all know. We in the Bloc Québécois are perceptive, astute and wise enough not to be fooled by the government's ploy.
I remember that in 1997, then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, the member for Shawinigan, created the National Forum on Health. At that time, I was a young MP in this House, high-spirited, energetic and confident about the future. I told my caucus that the Liberals were going to use the forum to do some nation building and would barge into health care. I was not far off.
[Intervention]
An hon. member:  Not Jean Chrétien. 
Réal Ménard:  I do not wish to call up bad memories for the House. However, it is a fact that it was Prime Minister Jean Chrétien who created the National Forum on Health—that he chaired himself— which allowed citizens from across Canada to have their say.
The idea to create the Romanow Commission stemmed from that forum. This commission of inquiry, which was not a royal commission of inquiry, no longer wanted there to be 10 health care systems. It recommended there be only one. It even went as far as proposing that there be a common procurement policy for drugs and a single order form, under the federal government's responsibility.
Health care is something that is highly visible. The Bloc Québécois cannot let the Conservative government get away with this. I hope that we can count on the vigilance of the President of the Treasury Board and that he will tell his government that health, particularly public health care, falls under provincial jurisdiction. 
I salute the President of the Treasury Board, a progressive man in his caucus. I know that, in terms of ideology, he is a dove. Within the government, there are hawks, there are doves and there are night owls. However, I will not comment on that.
That said, Premier Charest—who lacks backbone somewhat when it comes to defending Quebec's interests—is a man who has sometimes been rather complacent about the Conservative government. Premier Charest used to be a Conservative MP. Once when this House was in committee of the whole, there were two Conservatives. Things have changed. That was the will of the people, and the Bloc Québécois respects democracy. Regarding the Public Health Agency of Canada—and I invite the President of the Treasury Board to pay attention—Premier Jean Charest, who was the member for Sherbrooke, said that Quebec had created its own health structures.
As I mentioned earlier, Quebec has the Institut national de santé publique. Quebec has created its own health structures, and they work. These structures will cooperate with the ones that are put in place, but duplication is out of the question.
That is the real question. How can we think that a public structure with a $665 million budget will not be tempted to dominate, to sprawl and to intervene in jurisdictions that are not its own?
I remember well the years when the Liberal government reduced health transfers and the provinces were in serious trouble.
One of the negative aspects of Canadian federalism is this sort of fiscal imbalance that can be created. The government can table a budget and cause fiscal destabilization of the provinces without any negotiations or any advance notice to the provinces.
From 1993 to 2001, successive Liberal governments completely starved the provinces. The provincial premiers—New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals and people from the Parti Québécois—took a common stand and eventually won an agreement on health and restoration of the public money that the provinces had been cruelly deprived of. 
As the leader of the government knows, the health system is critically short of money. This will be important, because initially, the federal government was to contribute 50% of program operating costs. Even with the agreement that the government of the current member for LaSalle—Émard signed with the provinces, the figure is not much higher than 25% or 30%.
As you can see, this situation is not acceptable. I hope the Conservative government will have the courage to table a bill shortly to restore the transfer payments.
I saw the Prime Minister yesterday on public television, for which all members of the Bloc Québécois have the greatest respect. I saw, on the CBC French network, that the Prime Minister wanted to flip flop on the issue of the fiscal imbalance and that he was preparing the provinces for the fact that the extent of the fiscal imbalance was not so bad, even though this Prime Minister had the nerve to go to Sainte-Foy during the election campaign and tell Quebeckers that his party would resolve the fiscal imbalance. And now that I see the Prime Minister getting ready to dither and go back on his word, I certainly hope I never have to rise in this House to say that the Prime Minister has broken his word and not made all the investments expected by Quebeckers, including the Premier of Quebec.
We saw yesterday on CBC French television how worried and anxious the Quebec Premier was that the Conservatives would not deliver the goods. It is at times like this that we realize how fortunate it is that the Bloc is here in this House and is vigilant. We will not abdicate our duty to be vigilant and to force the federal government to solve the fiscal imbalance problem. It is too easy for the Prime Minister to show up at Ste-Foy and make promises that he later disowns.
In short, Bill C-5 does not respect provincial jurisdiction and the creation of a public health agency is not necessary. As for epidemics, I will say that all the public health managers can have meetings. The expected cooperation could very well be coordinated through existing interprovincial mechanisms without creating a new structure with a $665 million budget.
The Quarantine Act already includes the necessary provisions. If ever the situation necessitates it, the federal government can invoke that legislation but we will not let the federal government do its nation building with the health issue. We will not let the Conservatives follow the tradition instituted by the Liberals, either. And I know that for the Conservatives the bible on health care is the Romanow report. We will not let the Conservative government invade Quebec's jurisdictions, particularly not jurisdictions as sacred as health and social services.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau):  It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
At the next debate on Bill C-5, the hon. member will have 10 minutes remaining for questions and comments.

Private Members' Business
Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActMr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.):  moved that Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to Bill C-288, the Kyoto protocol implementation bill.
It is well established in the Constitution and the Standing Orders of this place and in past Speaker's rulings that bills resulting in the spending of money must be recommended to the House by a minister of the crown.
Enactment of this bill would necessitate the spending of public funds. Since there is no Governor General's recommendation with it, it is out of order.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to subclause 7(1) of this bill which reads:
 Within 180 days after this Act comes into force, the Governor in Council shall ensure that Canada fully meets its obligations under Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol by making, amending or repealing the necessary regulations under this or any other Act. 
The referenced article in the Kyoto protocol sets out targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions for signatory countries. Canada's target pursuant to the protocol is to reduce its emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. In fact, our emissions are currently 34.6% above this target.
When the former government announced its project green plan for honouring its Kyoto commitment in 2005, it estimated that $10 billion in government investments through 2012 were required to realize the anticipated reductions. 
Speaking at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on April 14, 2005, one day after the release of this plan, the then minister of the environment referred to this $10 billion as the “Kyoto money”. The hon. member informed the committee that approximately $2 billion had been appropriated in previous budgets, but that the remainder would have to come from future budgets. Budget 2005 announced some additional spending projections. A fraction of that spending was identified in the supplementary estimates for the 2005-06 fiscal year. But this money was never voted on by Parliament before dissolution last November, and this money was paid out through special warrants.
In any case, it is clear that Parliament has not authorized the extensive expenditures that would be required to “fully meet” Kyoto targets as Bill C-288 mandates. 
Further, given the increase in emissions, it would seem that even the $10 billion projection was a vast underestimation of the spending required to meet the objective of this bill.
Erskine May at page 763 of the 22nd edition notes:
 If there is any doubt on the matter and it appears that the new proposal may entail an extension of previously enacted purposes of expenditure or an increase in the expenditure potentially liable to be incurred in pursuit of such a purpose, a money resolution will be required. 
Similarly, on February 8, 2005 the Acting Speaker ruled on Bill C-280 stating:
 Where it is clear that the legislative objective of a bill cannot be accomplished without the dedication of public funds to that objective, the bill must be seen as the equivalent of a bill effecting an appropriation. 
 I find it difficult to see how this bill can mandate the government to fully meet existing Kyoto targets without also committing the government to additional significant expenditures in the billions of dollars. Only the Crown can recommend the expenditure of funds from the public revenue and this bill does not have that royal recommendation.
I would submit that this bill requires a royal recommendation. Since it is clear that the government's policy differs from the provisions of this bill, the House should know that no recommendation will be forthcoming.
Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader for repeating to the House what the Speaker of the House advised us the day before we started private members' business debate. He identified 10 of the 30 bills on the order of precedence that he had flagged as possibly requiring a royal recommendation. 
This bill, the Kyoto bill, was not one of those flagged by the Speaker. Notwithstanding that, the member will know that even a private member's item that requires a royal recommendation, 100%, will still receive two hours of debate at second reading, a vote at second reading, committee hearings, report stage and third reading. The decision on whether a royal recommendation is required will not be taken by the Speaker, according to the Speaker's own words, until it is time for a vote at third reading. Therefore, we have much time to deal with this.
 I would also remind the hon. House leader that even in the event he could argue that the climate change money available in the current appropriations of government would be exceeded by the requirements of this bill, the bill could be amended in committee or at report stage to say “to the extent but not exceeding the current appropriations for climate change”.
I thank the government House leader for repeating to us the rules of the game, as presented by the Speaker to the House. I know the government does not want Kyoto on the table and will not support Kyoto. We understand that and Canadians understand that. I know they will remember that. In the meantime, it would be useful for us to move on to the debate on this very important bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I thank the government House leader and the hon. member for Mississauga South for their comments on the point of order. If necessary, the Speaker will come back to the House.
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, we just saw once more how much the Conservatives hate the Kyoto protocol and how they will try everything to get rid of it.
 I am glad to have the opportunity to debate such an important bill. I take this opportunity to thank my seconder, the hon. member for Don Valley East and everyone who worked directly or indirectly on the bill.
This bill speaks primarily about the future. It is designed to make possible concrete acts today that will improve living conditions for the generations of tomorrow. I have always believed that political action should be motivated by a strong desire to make a positive difference in the world around us, a strong desire to prepare a better future for the generations to come.
As elected officials, we have the political and moral obligation to work toward building a better society, not only for those around us but, more important, for those who will follow us, our children and our grandchildren.
The environment is certainly something on which we can act, starting right now, to improve living conditions for the generations that will succeed us.
Not only can we act, we must act. We can act in a multitude of ways. We can act as individuals, through simple daily actions, and we can also act collectively, by adopting measures or passing legislation that promotes positive and responsible environmental behaviour. That is what this bill seeks to do.
The bill is absolutely necessary for a very simple reason. The Conservatives have decided to abandon Kyoto. They have decided to abandon the fight against climate change.
In reality, the conservatives have decided to surrender without even trying to fight. We cannot let them do this. That was what this Parliament tried to prevent when it adopted the Bloc Québécois' motion on May 16.
 That motion, which received the support of a large majority of hon. members, was rejected out of hand by the Prime Minister. In this way he showed how little respect he has for this House, how little it matters to him.
His reaction to the motion simply highlights the importance of the bill now before us, since if passed it will force the government to respect the will of this House. It will mean that Canada will have to comply with its Kyoto protocol commitments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate change represents one of the biggest challenges facing humanity, not solely from the environmental perspective but also from the perspectives of public health, security of the food supply, quality of life and economic prosperity. On this last point, I should point out that doing nothing about climate change today could lead to considerable economic costs in the future. 
When we talk about climate change, we are not just talking about the environment, we are talking about individuals, we are talking about human beings. We are talking about direct consequences to the health and quality of life of millions of people all over the planet. 
In Canada, let us think about the way our vast natural spaces could change—the melting of Arctic glaciers, the viability of our agriculture, the threat to the cultural survival of our northern communities. 
The impact of climate change is felt more in certain regions that are already among the poorest in the world. Regions that are already grappling with problems of inadequate food supplies or chronic coastal flooding. 
According to the best experts, if the average temperature at the earth's surface increases by 2 degrees above what it was during the pre-industrial era, dozens of millions of people by the year 2080—which is not that far—are likely to be confronted with coastal flooding and famines, hundreds of millions of people risk coming down with malaria, and billions of others may run short of water. 
This is not to be alarmist, but rather to recognize that the effects of climate change have already been felt and that this situation will worsen if we do not take concrete action in Canada as well as elsewhere in the world. This is, therefore, a collective and global effort. Everyone must shoulder the responsibility. This is the case for others and this is the case for Canada. It is in this context that I have the honour to table a private member's bill which will ensure that Canada meets its commitments under the Kyoto protocol.
More concretely, the bill creates an obligation on the government to establish an annual plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to make the necessary regulations to ensure implementation of the plan.
The plan will have to include a description of the measures to be taken to ensure that Canada meets its obligations.
This description will have to cover, first, regulated emission limits and performance standards; second, spending or fiscal measures or incentives provided for this purpose, if the government so wishes; third, market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets; and, fourth, cooperative measures or agreements with provinces, territories or other governments, where that applies, of course.
The government will have to set dates for the coming into effect of each of these measures, and the amount of greenhouse gas emission reductions that have resulted or are expected to result for each year up to and including 2012.
When the bill comes into force, the government will have 180 days to make appropriate regulations to establish its action plan. Such regulations could for example limit the amount of greenhouse gases that can be released into the environment by the large industrial emitters. They could also provide for emissions trading, structured to achieve the targeted objectives.
Naturally, each annual climate change plan will have to respect provincial areas of jurisdiction and take into account the respective levels of greenhouse gas emissions in each province.
It is also important to note that the bill creates an obligation on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to review the plan and the proposed regulations, and to report to Parliament on them. His involvement will guarantee the plan's credibility and the aptness of the regulations, so that we can indeed achieve the targeted objectives.
I could continue to go into detail, but I feel it is more important to come back the spirit of the bill. Why is it necessary? Why is it so important to adopt it?
As I said a little earlier, climate change represents one of the biggest challenges facing humanity. That is why the international community saw fit to adopt the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the well-known Rio Convention. The Convention, which has been ratified by Canada, came into force in 1994.
Realizing that the Convention’s scope and the tools it provided were insufficient, the international community decided to go further. That was the impetus for the Kyoto protocol. 
Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol by a majority vote in Parliament in 2002, and it came into force in 2005. 
The protocol may not be perfect but it represents the best weapon available to us for the urgent task of combating climate change. Various analyses have shown that if we do not start immediately, and decisively, we risk running out of time to prevent serious repercussions on our climate.
Canadians understand it, scientists understand it and all opposition parties understand it. Only the Conservatives do not understand it. In fact, they are trying to spread, without much success, various myths about Kyoto. 
For example, they are trying to claim that most countries cannot achieve their Kyoto objectives, which is false. Most of the 36 signatory countries with specific objectives are well on the way to achieving them. Within the European Community some countries, including Great Britain and France, have not only achieved but even surpassed their objectives. 
Even countries that are having difficulty, like Norway and Japan, are still striving to meet their targets and putting in place the measures that will enable them to do so.
The government is also telling us that the Asia-Pacific partnership, so enthusiastically touted by the Bush administration, will be just as good as Kyoto. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are two completely different things. The partnership is a formula that allows its members to exchange information. It has very little funding, sets no mandatory objectives or reductions, does not even have a timetable. On the other hand, the Kyoto protocol has become international law, with detailed objectives and a precise schedule, along with obligations for emission reduction.
As for the defeatist myth that says our objectives may be unattainable, this is merely an excuse coming from people who lack even the courage to try.
 My colleagues may be sure that we can achieve our objectives. One way we can do so is by exploiting the potential and seizing the extraordinary economic opportunity that the renewable energy sector offers. We can also do it through giant steps forward in energy efficiency.
Let us not forget that it is also possible to act positively by funding specific projects in certain less fortunate countries, projects that are also beneficial for our own environment because, as we know, the environment knows no borders. Greenhouse gases do not require a passport or a visa to enter or leave a country or a region. 
Those are a few of the approaches we can take and there are others. There are always ways for those who want to find them. 
Canada has always been able to find solutions. Not only has it been able to find solutions to its own challenges, it has also been able to take on leadership roles on the international stage.
We have only to think of the leading role played by Canada at the Montreal conference on climate change this past December. Canada's action was recognized and hailed around the world by foreign leaders, the international media, the scientific community and environmental groups. 
But now all that is changing. Why? Simply because the Conservatives have decided to abandon Kyoto. They have decided to abandon the fight against climate change.
This is a sad moment in our history, because by abandoning all this they are doing immense damage to Canada's image. But more important than that, they are hurting the generations to come.
On this very important issue, the government is out of touch with Canadians, out of touch with most of the international community, out of touch with this Parliament and even out of touch with provincial premiers.
As elected officials, as legislators, we have a duty, a moral obligation, to change this situation. We have the obligation to act right now. That is what this bill proposes to do.
When a government does not respect international law, or the will of its own citizens—when it does not shoulder its responsibilities for one of the most important challenges facing our planet—Parliament can and must force it to do so.
I therefore urge my colleagues of all parties to support this important bill. The environment is not a partisan issue, and cannot be approached in a partisan spirit.
Let us unite to work together, starting right now, for the benefit of future generations. Let us unite on concrete action to safeguard the environment. Let us do this together, for our own sakes, but above all for the sake of the generations to come. 
Steven Blaney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Honoré-Mercier has laudable intentions, but once again, like most of the measures proposed by the Liberal government in the past 13 years, this one sadly misses the mark. It is rather pathetic to see a national party introduce a private member's bill on an issue as important as climate change.
I would like to reassure my colleague, because on January 23, there was a major change in this House. Canadians elected a responsible government, a government that keeps its promises. The throne speech states that our government will take tangible steps to effectively address climate change. Sadly, in the past 13 years the previous government failed to do this. We had 13 years of good intentions and fine words but no results.
In his speech, the hon. member said that one party had hurt generations to come. But it was the Liberal Party that hurt future generations with 13 years of inaction on the environment. 
Let us talk about the Liberals' green plan. According to the same experts, this green plan was expensive and ineffective and passed the cost on to the taxpayers. This is totally unacceptable. Our government will take tangible measures.
I have a question for the member for Honoré-Mercier. What did the member and his party do for the past 13 years while greenhouse gas emission levels spiralled out of control? Does he support the measures that our government is putting in place to effectively fight climate change?
[Interjection]
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, there is an obvious reason why we have to introduce a private member's bill. It is because the Conservatives are doing absolutely nothing. If there is one thing on which I agree with the hon. member, it is that they respect their commitments, since they promised to do nothing. That is exactly what they are doing: nothing.
As for the previous government, I will remind the House that we introduced the green plan and we reserved funds for partnerships with the provinces. I remind the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse that $328 million had been reserved for the Quebec government's own measures. I take this opportunity to applaud the Quebec government for the plan it introduced yesterday, which constitutes a step in the right direction. We intended to give the Quebec government $328 million, but the Conservatives cut those funds. Not only do they do nothing, they even go backward. It is shameful. We did many things.
Maybe the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse thinks that we did not do enough, but that is no reason to do even less or absolutely nothing.
Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his very eloquent speech with regard to climate change, but I believe there is a moral obligation in this country and that moral obligation is to do what we say we will do. Quite frankly, people can tout until the sun goes down today and rises tomorrow how beneficial their plan might be, but actions speak louder than words.
There has been a 35% to 36% increase in greenhouse gas emissions since the former government announced its grandiose plans. Feigned indignation and false accusations do not win the day. They do not make the air for our children cleaner to breathe and they do not make the climate change. What makes things happen is a plan that works.
We have tabled a bit of our plan and over the next short while much will be. However, I would like to ask the hon. member if it is fair to allow a new government at least five or six years to prove its record. If so, would he not want to work with that government in order for it to be able to show Canadians and the world that it will live up to its commitments?
[Interjection]
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I would like to work with the government. All the parties would like to work with the government if it only knew where it was going on the issue of climate change. The government should at least have a plan or a direction.
What have the Conservatives done so far? They have cut transfers and money allocated for the provinces. Look at the infamous $328 million that was earmarked for Quebec. They cut excellent programs such as the EnerGuide program and the program for developing wind energy. There are even hon. members who do not believe the science behind climate change. There are even hon. members of the government who claim that climate change does not exist. 
The Speech from the Throne made no reference to the Kyoto protocol and the five priorities of the Conservative government make no reference to the environment. The Conservatives need to change their direction and give us something tangible to work on together. Since they have nothing, I invite them to support the bill.
Mr. Mark Warawa (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member speaking about his private member's bill. I serve on the environment committee with the member and I find it interesting and disappointing that we did not hear any reason from him for why he and his party did not speak up when, for the last 13 years, his government did absolutely nothing.
I find it very disappointing. The member spoke about a strong desire and a political and moral responsibility. I would agree that we have that political responsibility and that is why this government is committed to cleaning up the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
We will not be supporting this private member's bill, Bill C-288.
Climate change is one of the most complex, cross-cutting issues facing the world today. It is a long term challenge that cannot be addressed without effective international cooperation. The international community has always understood that the Kyoto protocol is a good first step, but it is only a first step.
 The protocol has both strengths and weaknesses. It was the first international instrument under which developed countries came to an agreement to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the protocol includes only short term national targets for a relatively small number of countries. It does not address a global solution to climate change over the longer term.
In the year 2000, the countries with targets under the Kyoto protocol accounted for only 28% of global greenhouse emissions. Indeed, a mandate review of the protocol was already started in Bonn this past May. Canada is playing an active role in this review, which will assess what has worked under the Kyoto protocol and what has not worked well, in order to better inform our discussions on the future. 
 Future actions on climate change must address the need for long term action with all global emitters. This is why all parties to the convention agreed to begin a new dialogue on long term cooperative action to address climate change with all parties, not just the countries under the protocol.
The first workshop of that dialogue took place in Bonn last month. Canada will continue to play an active role in this dialogue process as well.
Because the situation that each country faces is unique, there are many options, considerations and viewpoints about how the international community should move forward when the first commitment period of the protocol finishes. It is precisely because each country has its own unique national circumstances that many countries firmly believe the future approach will need to allow for different types of commitments.
In Bonn, consultations started on the Russian Federation proposal for allowing voluntary commitments to be made by countries that do not currently have targets under the protocol. This important issue is moving forward.
To be effective in addressing global climate change, international cooperation on climate change must meet a number of conditions.
First, it will need to be based on the principles of flexibility, cost effectiveness and national circumstances and recognize a broad range of approaches to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.
Second, it will need broad participation by developed and developing countries alike, with an eye on long term objectives.
Third, addressing climate change in the face of rising global energy demand will require effective development and deployment of technologies within both developed and developing countries.
Finally, global action on climate change must integrate the additional co-benefits provided at the local level, such as improved air quality.
Canada is committed to working to ensure that future international cooperation satisfies those conditions. That is why we are playing a leadership role internationally on the two-track discussions under the UN framework convention on climate change new future dialogues that were launched in Bonn last May.
The dialogue on long term cooperation action is open to all 189 countries, including the United States, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was set up to share experiences and to examine innovative new future approaches to address climate change. 
The dialogue is significant because it is not simply tied to the Kyoto style approach of national targets for developed countries. In addition, it can openly examine better ways of engaging countries in cooperative action on climate change. This dialogue includes participation by all major emitting developing countries, such as India and China, as well as the United States and Australia.
The United States emits approximately 20% of global greenhouse gases and India and China together account for approximately 20%. By comparison, Canada's share is approximately 2%. It is important that all countries participate in the dialogue. Climate change is a global problem and requires a real global solution.
The second vehicle is the ad hoc working group on further commitments for developed countries under the protocol beyond 2012. The ad hoc working group discussions will review and assist the implementation of the protocol to date and will discuss considering new types of commitments. These discussions should be broad enough to allow for consideration of alternative approaches to international cooperation and opportunities for those countries that do not have Kyoto targets to participate in the future. At this point, this process is only a discussion of the items that will need to be assessed before developed countries can consider any new commitments.
These two processes are not proceeding in isolation, nor should they. They must inform each other. They must also recognize other multilateral approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Canada is actively engaged internationally and will continue to do so, going forward in a way that is consistent with our national circumstances and that advances national interests.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, it give me great pleasure to speak today on Bill C-288, concerning the Kyoto protocol, sponsored by the hon. member for Honoré—Mercier.
 I want to begin by commending the hon. member on putting before the House for debate the bill before us today. From the outset, I announce that the Bloc Québécois intends to vote in favour of this bill.
The bill deals with five issues: first, the importance for Canada to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol; second, the establishment of an annual plan to monitor progress on achieving the Kyoto objectives until 2013, and I stress the requirement for such a plan to be produced and submitted; third, the making of regulations in support of achieving the Kyoto objectives; fourth, the review by the environment commissioner of the plans received; and fifth, a report to Parliament.
It is important today to make it clear to the government that this bill follows logically from the motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois and passed on May 16 by the majority in this House. This motion called on the federal government to take the necessary measures to ensure that its objectives under the Kyoto protocol are met.
A moment ago, the parliamentary secretary talked about two vehicles, namely the working group on climate change and the Asia-Pacific partnership. This clearly shows that, in addressing climate change, the government does not give precedence to the Kyoto protocol. Clearly, as was just mentioned in this House, the government intends to be giving precedence to vehicles other than those provided under the Kyoto protocol, including the Asia-Pacific partnership.
As a logical next step to the May 16 motion, we in this House should pass this bill at second reading stage, or at least vote in support of the bill's principle.
Naturally, we have some concerns. The plan that the government would be required to present to Canadians annually until 2013 is one source of concern. We are wondering why, for instance, the time limit is set at 2013. Of course, the first phase under the Kyoto protocol calls for Canada to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% with respect to the 1990 level between 2008 and 2012. We believe that negotiations are already underway in the international arena concerning the second phase, known as Kyoto 2, of this effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We would like to see a provision in this bill for the submission of yearly plans not only during phase one of greenhouse gas emissions reduction, but also after 2012, which is when phase two of greenhouse gas reduction begins. That would send a powerful message to the international community that Canada is concerned about reaching targets not only for the period from 2008 to 2012, but for the following phase, Kyoto 2. 
This bill provides for enacting regulations to achieve the Kyoto protocol targets. We wholeheartedly support this approach to regulating greenhouse gas emissions, especially for large industrial emitters. Until now, the preferred approach has been to sign voluntary agreements with industrial sectors to reach greenhouse gas reduction targets. Large industrial emitters will be responsible for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. Emissions are increasing rapidly, and there is no reason to believe that, even with a voluntary approach, large industrial sectors will reach the targets. 
We will therefore have to consider a regulatory approach that aims to define clear targets for large industrial emitters. 
This would help ensure that we reach the Kyoto protocol targets. 
Third, any requirement to develop a yearly plan must take into account provincial areas of jurisdiction, in accordance with the very principle of the bill. 
We would like to remind the House that we support a territorial approach based on bilateral agreements with the provinces. I am not talking about agreements like the ones we have seen in the past, which were signed with some provinces, including Ontario. While they certainly show willingness on the part of the provinces to fight climate change, we would prefer that these agreements be part of a partnership with the provinces—a financial partnership—and that they include recognized targets. 
For example, yesterday Quebec released a greenhouse gas reduction plan that aims to reach two thirds of the target set out in the Kyoto protocol. However, we are still waiting for the $328 million to support reaching that goal. 
Quebec could reach all of its goals if we could be certain of receiving the $328 million through a funding agreement with the province that would enable it to cut an additional four megatonnes, thereby reaching all of its greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Here are the spirit and letter that we would like to include in the bill: that the agreements signed be bilateral, and that these financial agreements include a transfer of the sums needed to reach our Kyoto targets.
Another aspect of the bill before us is the environment commissioner's evaluation regarding the government's progress in terms of reaching our Kyoto targets.
I think we will have the perfect opportunity, beginning this fall, to become fully aware of the importance of the role of the environment commissioner in the evaluation and follow-up of measures taken by the federal government to enforce the Kyoto protocol. The commissioner will table a report on climate change this fall. In her report, we will certainly begin to see important benchmarks that will allow us to evaluate the government's progress in the fight against climate change.
The federal government has the means to contribute to the fight against climate change. For example, it could bring in manufacturing standards for automobiles equal to those of the state of California and ensure that all vehicles, both big and small, now on the market use less gasoline and produce less greenhouse gas per 100 km.
We must move closer to European standards, which demand that vehicles be more fuel efficient. This will help us reach our Kyoto targets.
Europe is on the right path to reaching its Kyoto targets. Why? Because they have taken concrete action, because agreements have been struck among the sovereign countries that are members of the EU, by enforcing a common strategy for the entire EU, yet a strategy that is distinct for each member country.
This is an interesting territorial approach that we would like to integrate, in a concrete way, into the bill presented by the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.
We would therefore support Bill C-288 at this stage, on the condition that our proposed modifications be adopted in parliamentary committee.
Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by paying tribute to my colleague from Honoré-Mercier for using his private member's opportunity to bring such an important bill to the House of Commons. The short title of the bill is the Kyoto protocol implementation act. I can serve notice that the NDP is in support of Canada maintaining and fulfilling the obligations it stipulated itself to in ratifying the Kyoto accord. I can say categorically that this initiative has our support.
The first leader of the NDP, Tommy Douglas, was fond of quoting Alfred, Lord Tennyson by saying, “Courage, my friends, 'tis not too late to build a better world”. Many of us have not lost faith that it is not too late to build a better world. We are still true believers in our international institutions. Even as some countries are turning their backs on the United Nations, many of us still have hope that internationalism is the way forward, whether we are dealing with overall development aid, fighting world poverty, or in fact this critical issue of climate change. Surely the world can come together and agree on a priority like saving our planet.
When Canada ratified the Kyoto accord, there was a wave of optimism throughout the land that the world was finally seized of this pressing issue. Finally those in the flat earth society who had been denying the science about climate change had come around and matured in their thinking. We were coming together as a global community, but now, one by one, even some of those countries that did stipulate themselves to putting in place a climate change action plan along the guidance of the Kyoto protocol are cooling off and backing out.
This is an opportunity for us to serve notice to the government of the day that the majority of the members of the House of Commons disagree with the minority ruling party in this 39th Parliament. We disagree profoundly and we are demanding that the government take action and fulfill its obligation.
It was not the Conservative Party of Canada that signed the Kyoto protocol; it was not the Conservative Party that ratified the Kyoto protocol; it was Parliament on behalf of the people of Canada. The majority of Parliament say that we want Kyoto implemented. We demand that Kyoto be implemented. The Conservatives seem to want to cut and run, as they are fond of saying.
When I was the head of the carpenters union, we did a lot of research on energy retrofitting, on the demand-side management of our precious energy resources. This is an area in which perhaps the Conservatives, even in the absence of a commitment to Kyoto, could take the opportunity to engage themselves. 
The federal government has direction and control over 68,000 buildings. Many of those buildings are energy hogs. They were built in an era when energy conservation was not an issue. 
A unit of energy harvested from the existing system through energy retrofitting or demand-side management is indistinguishable from a unit of energy generated at a hydroelectric station or a nuclear power plant, except for a number of key things. First of all, it is available at about one-third the cost. Second, it provides a cost saving to the building owner. Third, it creates seven times the number of person years of employment to harvest this energy through demand-side management versus supply-side management. As well, that unit of energy is online and available for resale immediately instead of the seven year lag time that would be the case if we needed to build a new nuclear power plant, like Ontario is contemplating today.
The federal government could show leadership to the private sector by embarking on a comprehensive demand-side management energy retrofit program of its own 68,000 buildings. I believe the estimate is that at 30% savings, it would be $1.5 billion a year in energy saved. Look at the jobs it would create. Look at the greenhouse gases that it would preclude from being generated through generating stations. This is an idea whose time has come. All of these things would be given life. They would come to fruition under the rubric of the Kyoto accord.
 I am concerned that in the absence of any structured commitment, such as this international accord, none of these ideas will occur, or if they do, they will be done in a piecemeal fashion and random ad hoc little flare-ups. It will be just enough to keep the public quiet, but in actual fact there will be no real comprehensive strategy to reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions and also, by this one simple initiative, to enjoy these many secondary benefits that I have outlined.
There is a secondary point. Coming from the province of Manitoba, I would be remiss if I did not remind my colleagues in the House that there is another national strategy which needs to be embraced in the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that is the fact that my province of Manitoba has a net surplus of hydroelectricity. We produce and generate more electricity than we can use. We export it. We export it to the United States, whereas Ontario is on the verge of another brownout season for its want of electricity. We have no way of transmitting and selling it domestically. We end up selling it internationally. It is madness that we do not have a national energy strategy.
My colleague from B.C. will testify to this as well. British Columbia is also a net producer of hydroelectricity while parts of Canada are wanting. We need an east-west domestic electricity grid so that we can produce virtually environmentally friendly hydroelectric power. I am not trying to diminish that there is a footprint left behind in the generation of electricity, but it pales in comparison--it does not even compare--to that of nuclear energy, thermo-generated electricity, an appalling producer of greenhouse gas emissions.
Again, I am concerned that it is difficult for us to raise the east-west power grid in isolation, but in the context of the Kyoto accord protocol, in the context of implementing our commitments under Kyoto, the east-west power grid would be a logical place to begin as a benefit to all Canadians and to bail out Ontario in this emergency the province is facing, which is a looming political problem if nothing else.
 I am pleased that the 39th Parliament will in fact be dealing with and be seized of the issue of the Kyoto protocol. I am grateful to my colleague from Honoré-Mercier for bringing this forward.
I should spend the last minute of my time in recognizing and also paying tribute to my colleague from the Liberals, the hon. member for Don Valley West. In the previous Parliament, he was the former secretary of state for municipal infrastructure and investment.
 I would like to recognize him personally because in the last Parliament the Kyoto protocol had no greater champion. In fact, there was only one place where practical measures were not only being recognized and acknowledged but implemented. For some of the municipal infrastructure initiatives being put forward, my colleague from Don Valley West had the pleasure of going around the country signing and delivering the cheques to municipalities. We have to recognize that this was taking us in the right direction.
 Again, this is the type of initiative that loses its momentum in the absence of a greater context, which the Kyoto protocol initiative offered.
 If we can say anything to Canadians, we can say that they should be lobbying their members of Parliament, especially those on the government side, to make it known that Canadians expected Kyoto to be implemented. They approved it and they directed their Parliament and their House of Commons to ratify it. Now we are waiting for the action plan to implement it.
Hon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for his very kind remarks at the end of his address.
As we move into the season of angry weather associated with climate change and global warning, I am here to support Bill C-288, an act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto protocol.
I must also recognize the vital role played by my colleague, the member for Honoré—Mercier, in preparing this bill. It is truly very important.
I suggest that the current Minister of the Environment should also be advocating for this bill as it seems consistent and supportive of her views as recently expressed in a speech to the Canadian Club of Ottawa. The remarks of the parliamentary secretary suggest that he too should support Bill C-288.
Bill C-288 in its preamble begins with the proposition that “global climate change is one of the most serious threats facing humanity and Canada” and then in turn it refers to the national science academies of Canada, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States and states, “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action”. 
Happily, the Minister of the Environment has publicly accepted the science of climate change, unlike several of her backbench and cabinet colleagues.
Some unkind souls have suggested that the Minister of the Environment, despite the fact that she is the current president of the Kyoto process, is against Kyoto. How heartening it was therefore to hear her say, and I will quote what the minister said when she was speaking of the onerous targets of Kyoto, “Some environmental groups stated this was akin to a complete abandonment of Kyoto, which is ludicrous. It doesn't mean that all is lost or that we've given up the fight”. That is a relief. The minister is sticking to Kyoto. Who knew?
In her recent speech the minister asked several useful questions: What has worked and not worked in the first phase of Kyoto? What can we do to broaden our efforts? Those are her questions. The minister's objective will be greatly aided by the passage of Bill C-288, whose purpose “is to ensure that Canada takes effective and timely action to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol and help address the problem of global climate change”. This view was reinforced by the parliamentary secretary himself in his own speech. 
To assist the minister in determining what has worked and not worked with the first phase of Kyoto, which was her question, Bill C-288 proposes that the minister prepare a climate change plan, as she said she shall, that sets out various measures, such as regulating emission limits and performance standards, market based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets, spending or fiscal measures or incentives, cooperative measures or agreements with the provinces, territories or other governments. 
To help the minister even further, Bill C-288 proposes that for each measure outlined above, there be a careful accounting each year of the greenhouse gas emission reductions that result from the measure. In the words of the minister, what has worked and not worked?
All that, as proposed by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, in accordance with the recommendations made last fall by the commissioner of the environment.
Some skeptics have suggested that the minister actually does not like Kyoto. She certainly has spent more time talking about what has not worked than about what has worked. In fact, some point to the fact that the government website seems to be scrubbed clean of any reference to the actual word “Kyoto”, which is curious.
 But hearken to the words of the minister herself, “What many people miss is that what we do at home is Kyoto”. That is splendid. The minister also said, “By being transparent about the challenges Canada is facing we have the opportunity to put in place a domestic solution which will contribute to our international efforts”. How wisely the minister links our international obligations under Kyoto to our domestic plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We in the Liberal Party are here to help and support the Minister of the Environment every step of the way with Bill C-288.
A close reading of the minister's speech to the Canadian Club shows how badly misunderstood she has been. She accepts the science of climate change. She accepts Kyoto, but wishes to improve it. She links our international obligations under Kyoto with our domestic efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. We know how keen she is to have precise targets in her made in Canada plan.
By being so precise in her criticism of the previous government's failures to reach Kyoto emission targets, she has committed herself to be measured by the same precise, demanding, stringent, numerical standards. How many megatonnes of CO2 are being emitted every year? Where precisely is Canada now in relation to its total emissions in 1990? By describing the previous government's targets as unreachable, the minister has clearly committed herself to targets which are both reachable and, by definition, measurable. 
Finally, the minister, by her criticism of previous efforts in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as being ineffective, has set herself the clear challenge of being more effective, of exceeding the anticipated results of the Liberal government's project green. Even the harshest critics of project green, such as Mark Jaccard in a recent C.D. Howe Institute study, recognized that the combined measures of project green would have reduced Canada's annual greenhouse gas emissions by 175 megatonnes annually by 2010, achieving 80% of Canada's Kyoto commitment for that year.
The Minister of the Environment must now exceed that target. To help her do so, we put forward, in the spirit of constructive support, Bill C-288. She wants a made in Canada plan. So do we. Bill C-288 calls for a climate change plan and outlines precise measures. She wants to know what works and what does not work. So do we. Bill C-288 calls for an annual accounting of the precise reduction of greenhouse gas emissions caused by each measure.
Clearly, for the minister to prove that her plan is working better than previous plans and previous programs, she will need to set for herself precise, hard, reachable, measurable targets and be willing to be judged by the results. Bill C-288 is here to support the minister in her ambition and Bill C-288 deserves the wholehearted support of the Minister of the Environment in return.
I would like to turn briefly to the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary. We agree with him on the importance of long term action and goals, which we call Kyoto II. We agree that climate change is a global problem that needs a global solution but we also think Kyoto is the only game in town. No alternative scheme will take us there. This is it. We can make it better and we can move to a second phase but it will be Kyoto. That is the plan which has within the UN framework 189 countries.
If the government has a better international plan, it had better show us where the 189 countries will join up for that better plan.
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions is a long term endeavour. It requires a framework that provides clear, long term direction and predictability. It cannot involve short term targets with constantly changing policies and incentives. 
That is why the government is committed to developing a made in Canada approach that will focus on achieving sustained reductions of emissions in Canada and transforming our economy over the long term. We want to see real emission reductions and real progress in reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. 
While the hon. member should be commended for his concern about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the essence of his proposal that Canada achieve its Kyoto target simply cannot be done, and his overall approach to a workable climate change plan for Canada is seriously flawed. 
Respected Canadian, Rex Murphy, remarks that the politics, means and value of Kyoto are a basket of uncertainties or insignificance.
There is a general acknowledgement on the science of air pollution and greenhouse gases. We know enough to realize that action is needed. The first Kyoto commitment period starts in 2008, which is only a year and a half from now. Our greenhouse gas emissions are 35% above our Kyoto target following the Liberal government. This is a huge number, representing more than the annual emissions from transportation in this country. 
This brings me to a serious flaw in the conception of this proposed bill. The bill would require an annual climate change plan. That is pretty much what we have had over the past five or six years and it is just what we do not need. We need to lay out a path forward and get busy acting on it. Having a plan is always important but not when it is a substitute for action. Business needs certainty, not annual plans that lay out measures upon measures. 
This government is committed to developing a made in Canada approach that will focus on achieved sustained reductions in emissions in Canada and transforming our economy over the long term. We will be working with the provinces, the territories, industry and other Canadians. We will be looking at engaging communities and individual Canadians to reduce not only greenhouse gases but other air pollutants. 
This government supports international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change is a global issue that requires global solutions. Our domestic policy will be our guide in future cooperative efforts to address climate change. We understand that climate change is a global issue and that we need a global solution, which is why Canada is a major player in the United Nations led climate change negotiations for longer term reductions well after the first Kyoto protocol reporting period.
The Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the item is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. 
It being 2:37 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:37 p.m.)